The  Nearing  Case 


UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


THE  NEARING  CASE 


The  Nearing  Case 

The   Limitation   of   Academic    Freedom    at   the 

University  of  Pennsylvania  by  act  of 

the  Board  of  Trustees 

June  14,  1915 


A  Brief  of  Facts  and  Opinions  prepared  by 

LIGHTNER  WITMER 

in 

A.B.  '88,  Wharton  School  and  College 

Professor  of  Psychology  and  Director  of  the  Psychological 

Laboratory  and  Clinic,  U.  of  Pa. 


NEW  YORK 

B.  W.  HUEBSCH 

1915 


- 


"Not  only  is  eternal  vigilance  the  price  of  liberty,  eternal  struggle  is  the 
price  of  liberty." 

HON.  ELIHTT  ROOT. 
Address  to  The  Union  League  of  Philadelphia,  March  23,  1915. 

"I  assert  that  this  perversion  of  democracy,  this  robbing  democracy  of 
its  virility,  can  be  changed  as  truly  as  the  system  under  which  Walpole 
governed  the  Commons  of  England  by  bribery,  as  truly  as  the  atmosphere 
which  made  the  Credit  Mobilier  scandal  possible  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  has  been  blown  away  by  the  force  of  public  opinion." 

HON.  ELIHTT  ROOT. 

Address  to  the  New  York  State  Constitutional  Convention, 

August  31, 1915. 


769416 


"The  American  university  that  best  catches  the  spirit  of  the  coming 
era,  that  is  truly  abreast  of  the  truest  tendencies  of  the  times,  that  does  the 
most  to  promote  individuality  rather  than  to  standardize  it,  as  is  the  result 
of  a  purely  mechanical  age,  that  does  the  best  to  apply  it  to  the  current  affairs 
of  life,  and  does  the  best  to  develop  our  institutions  according  to  safe  and 
workable  channels,  that  American  university  is  going  to  be  the  great  univer- 
sity of  the  future;  for  the  universities  standing  upon  the  mountain  ranges 
have  always  in  the  past  history  of  the  human  race,  when  there  have  been 
universities,  been  the  first  to  catch  the  dawn  of  the  new  era;  and,  just  as 
Wittenberg,  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  first  caught  the  period 
of  extraordinary  intellectual  fermentation  and  protest  and  thus  gained  so 
wide  and  splendid  a  prestige  hi  Europe,  that  Shakespeare  makes  its  college, 
the  youngest  of  all,  the  university  of  his  favorite  prince;  so  precisely  in  the 
race  for  supremacy  that  is  still  to  be  run,  the  American  college  that  is  most 
truly  American,  the  one  that  catches  the  first  breath  of  the  dawn,  the  one 
that  proceeds  along  the  safest  and  surest  channels,  and  that  best  reflects  the 
tendencies  of  the  American  people,  that  will  be  the  college  that  will  have  an 
unquestioned  supremacy  among  American  educational  institutions." 

HON.  JAMES  M.  BECK,  '10. 

Address  at  New  York  Alumni  Dinner,  March  14, 1914* 
(From  the  Alumni  Register,  April,  1914.) 


INTRODUCTION 

On  June  14,  1915,  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  voted  not  to  reappoint  Dr.  iScott  Nearing  assistant 
professor  of  economics  for  the  academic  year  1915-16.  Acting 
under  orders  of  the  board,  the  Provost  sent  Dr.  Nearing  this 
letter: 

June  15,  1915. 

My  dear  Mr.  Nearing: 

As  the  term  of  your  appointment  as  assistant  pro- 
fessor of  economics  for  1914-15  is  about  to  expire,  I  am 
directed  by  the  trustees  of  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania to  inform  you  that  it  will  not  be  renewed. 
With  best  wishes,  I  am 

Yours  .sincerely, 

EDGAR  F.  SMITH. 

Although  this  action  of  the  board  was  technically  a  refusal 
to  renew  an  annual  appointment,  throughout  the  discussion  which 
followed  it  was  justly  treated  as  a  dismissal.  The  legal  right  of 
the  board  of  trustees  to  dismiss  an  assistant  professor  is  admitted. 
The  objections  offered  to  the  action  of  the  board  in  the  Nearing 
case  have  reference  to  the  mode  of  procedure. 

The  issues  involved  are  much  more  complicated  than  the 
mere  fact  of  dismissal  would  seem  to  indicate.  In  order  to  pre- 
sent the  more  important  of  these  issues,  I  prepared  a  series  of 
statements  which  were  published  from  time  to  time  during  the 
summer  months  in  two  Philadelphia  newspapers.  These  I  am 
now  republishing  together  with  some  arguments  on  both  sides  of 
this  discussion,  as  well  as  extracts  from  various  sources,  including 
the  Alumni  Register,  a  periodical  under  the  editorial  control  of 
the  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society.  This 
partial  summary  of  what  preceded  and  followed  Dr.  Nearing's 
dismissal  constitutes  a  brief  of  facts  and  opinions  which  I  hope 
will  prove  a  useful  guide  for  those  seeking  to  form  a  sound  and 
independent  judgment,  as  well  as  for  some  future  historian  who 

(ix) 


X 

may  come  to  write  this  rather  confused  chapter  in  the  history 
of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  I  see  before  this  and  other 
universities  a  period  of  intense  struggle  for  the  freedom  of 
research  and  teaching,  and  over  the  right  of  academic  men 
to  serve  the  public  in  various  capacities.  A  frank  treatment  of 
all  the  facts,  with  a  consequent  understanding  of  the  real  issues 
involved,  will  bring  no  lasting  discredit  on  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania. 

In  general  the  issues  arise  from  a  diversity  of  opinion  in  the 
fields  of  education,  religion,  and  social  service.  They  transcend 
and  should  be  held  above  mere  personalities.  For  this  reason 
I  have  refrained  from  all  discussion  of  Dr.  Nearing's  fitness  to 
be  an  assistant  professor  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 
The  fact  that  he  has  been  consistently  recommended  by  the 
head  of  his  department,  which  recommendation  has  been  sup- 
ported by  the  dean  and  faculty  of  the  Wharton  School,  I  con- 
sider creates  a  presumption  of  Dr.  Nearing's  fitness,  which  can 
only  be  offset  by  a  specific  statement  of  facts.  Despite  the 
discussion  of  the  last  three  months,  no  facts  have  been  dis- 
closed which  would  warrant  action  contrary  to  the  deliberate 
judgment  of  those  who  are  most  familiar  with  Dr.  Nearing's  work. 

At  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  during  the  academic 
year  1914-15  there  were  128  professors,  67  assistant  professors, 
and  365  instructors,  including  assistants,  lecturers,  associates, 
assistant  instructors,  and  readers.  The  trustees  designate  the 
appointment  of  professors  "for  an  indefinite  term,"  but  in  the 
case  of  all  other  officers  of  instruction,  unless  a  term  of  two  or 
three  years  is  specified,  the  appointment  is  for  a  single  year. 
Thus,  Dr.  Nearing  was  promoted  from  an  instructorship  to  an 
assistant  professorship  in  June,  1914,  but  with  the  notification  of 
his  appointment  went  the  copy  of  a  by-law  of  the  board  of  trus- 
Jtees,  reciting  among  other  provisions  the  followirig:  "At  the 
expiration  of  the  period  specified  in  the  terms  of  the  appointment, 
such  appointment  shall  be  regarded  as  terminated  without  further 
notice,  unless  it  shall  have  been  renewed." 

While  this  by-law  has  been  in  existence  for  some  years,  it  was 
understood  until  recently  that  the  appointment  of  an  assistant 
professor  was  automatically  renewed  from  year  to  year  unless  the 
professors  of  his  particular  department  advised  against  his  reap- 


XI 

pointment.  Many  assistant  professors  and  even  some  professors 
did  not  know  until  this  year  of  the  existence  of  this  by-law. 

If  the  operation  of  this  by-law  in  the  case  of  Assistant  Pro- 
fessor Nearing  establishes  a  precedent,  it  means  that  an  assistant 
professor  may  be  recommended  in  February  or  March  for  reap- 
pointment  by  the  board  of  trustees,  but  that  the  trustees  without 
further  notification  to  the  department,  the  dean,  and  the  faculty 
recommending  him,  may  in  June  decline  to  reappoint,  assigning 
no  reason  for  their  action  either  to  the  assistant  professor  or  to 
the  dean  and  faculty. 

The  board  of  trustees  evidently  intends  to  employ  this  pro- 
cedure with  respect  to  all  assistant  professors  and  instructors. 
For  the  first  time,  assistant  professors  in  the  College  received  last 
August  the  following  notification  of  reappointment: 

DEAR  SIR: 

It  gives  me  pleasure  to  inform  you  that  you  have 
been  elected  to  an  Assistant  Professorship  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania  for  the  year  1915-16.  Salary  at 
the  rate  of  $ per  annum. 

Truly  yours, 

EDWARD  ROBINS, 

Secretary. 

"Appointments  other  than  those  of  Professors  and 
Assistant  Professors  shall  be  for  one  year.  The  appoint- 
ment of  Assistant  Professors  shall  be  for  a  term  of  from, 
one  to  three  years.  At  the  expiration  of  the  period 
specified  in  the  terms  of  the  appointment,  such  appoint- 
ment shall  be  regarded  as  terminated,  without  further 
notice,  unless  it  shall  have  been  renewed."  Statutes, 
Sec.  27  (6). 

As  reappointments  are  acted  upon  at  the  June  meeting  of  the 
board  of  trustees,  and  these  notifications  were  received  between 
August  1st  and  15th,  the  assistant  professor  is  thus  brought  to 
realize  that 


Xll 

(1)  His  services  and  salary  terminate  June  30,  1916. 

(2)  No  assurance  can  be  given  him  by  the  professors  of  his 
department  or  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  faculty,  that  he 
will  be  retained  in  the  service  of  the  University  subsequent  to 
June  30th. 

(3)  He  cannot  expect  to  receive  this  assurance  until  some 
time  after  the  second  Monday  in  June,  and  the  notification  may 
not  be  received  by  him  until  after  August  1st. 

Under  these  circumstances,  may  we  not  expect  one-year 
appointees  to  be  looking  this  year  for  a  more  secure  tenure  of 
office  at  some  other  institution?  Not  only  are  their  present 
positions  and  salaries  held  at  the  arbitrary  pleasure  of  the  board 
of  trustees,  but  their  eligibility  to  a  Carnegie  pension  is  likewise 
in  jeopardy. 

It  has  always  been  tacitly  understood  that  when  the  pro- 
fessors of  a  department  and  the  faculty  recommended  a  man  to 
the  board  of  trustees,  the  board  would  not  totally  disregard  such 
recommendation  and  fail  to  reappoint.  The  heads  of  departments 
organize  and  keep  together  an  efficient  staff  only  with  great 
difficulty,  for  other  institutions  are  looking  for  able  men.  It  is 
safe  to  say  that  few  assistant  professors  or  instructors  are  being 
held  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  by  salary  alone.  Esprit 
de  corps,  loyalty,  and  the  opportunity  for  research  and  effective 
teaching  are  motives  which  hold  efficient  men  to  the  service  of 
the  institution.  The  one-year  appointment,  renewable  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  board  of  trustees  at  their  June  meeting,  must 
cause  a  serious  falling  off  in  the  efficiency  of  the  several  depart- 
ments of  instruction.  In  fact,  it  will  be  found  impossible  to  con- 
duct an  institution  like  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  under 
this  procedure.  A  city  could  not  run  its  police  department  in 
this  manner. 

The  primary  function  of  a  board  of  trustees  would  appear  to 
be,  not  so  much  to  guide  the  detailed  development  of  a  particular 
department,  but  rather  to  make  it  possible  for  that  department 
to  organize  and  maintain  an  efficient  staff.  The  securing  of 
funds  for  the  conduct  of  the  University,  and  the  equitable  and 
expeditious  distribution  of  funds  among  the  several  departments, 
would  seem  to  be  the  board's  part  in  University  administration. 
No  one  ought  to  minimize  the  devoted  labors  of  certain  members 


Xlll 

of  the  board  of  trustees  in  the  interest  of  tha  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania; but  is  the  administration  to  be  limited  to  the  twenty- 
four  members  of  the  board?  What  are  the  members  of  the 
faculty  expected  to  contribute  to  the  development  of  the  several 
departments  of  the  University? 

This  is  the  crucial  question  in  the  Nearing  case,  so  far  as  the 
faculty  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  is  directly  concerned. 
After  Dr.  Nearing  had  been  for  many  years  an  instructor,  the 
question  of  his  removal  became  a  matter  of  public  concern  and 
discussion  in  January,  1914.  The  trustees  then  denied  that  any 
effort  was  being  made  to  remove  Dr.  Nearing  because  of  his 
economic  opinions  or  his  public  utterances  on  child  labor  legis- 
lation. In  June,  1914,  Dr.  Nearing  was  promoted  from  an 
instructorship  to  an  assistant  professorship.  No  one  has  been 
able  to  suggest  sufficient  cause,  arising  during  the  academic  year 
1914-15,  which  could  justify  a  change  of  attitude  on  the  part  of 
the  board  of  trustees.  Nevertheless,  the  board  of  directors  of  the 
General  Alumni  Society  exerted  their  influence  with  the  trustees 
to  effect  the  removal  of  Dr.  Nearing.  Moreover,  strong  efforts 
have  been  made  from  time  to  time,  and  still  persist  within  and 
without  the  board  of  trustees,  to  remove  Dr.  William  Draper 
Lewis,  professor  of  law  and  former  dean  of  the  Law  School, 
because  of  his  connection  with  the  campaign  of  the  Progressive 
Party  in  this  state  and  throughout  the  country.  An  attempt  is 
being  made  to  develop  the  idea  that  an  officer  of  instruction  at 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania  is  an  employee  of  the  board  of 
trustees,  and  that  the  opinions  and  utterances  of  members  of  the 
faculty  must  conform  to  those  of  the  board.  Some  trustees  give 
of  their  substance  to  the  support  of  the  institution.  Some  are 
content  to  control  the  funds  given  by  others — of  recent  years 
chiefly  by  the  state.  Whatever  the  origin  of  the  income  of  the 
University  may  be,  have  those  who  control  the  expenditure  the 
right  to  determine  what  every  stipendiary  shall  teach  or  refrain 
from  teaching? 

Freedom  of  opinion  and  speech  never  will  be  absolutely 
unlimited,  nor  on  the  other  hand  can  it  ever  be  absolutely 
restricted.  The  struggle  is  probably  eternal,  between  those 
seeking  a  larger  measure  of  freedom  and  those  demanding  greater 
conformity.  The  issue  is  not  drawn  between  the  board  of  trustees 


XIV 

and  the  faculty  of  any  one  university,  nor  yet  between  trustees 
and  faculties  as  opposing  social  groups  in  the  community.  The 
members  of  a  faculty  will  differ  in  opinion,  as  will  the  members 
of  a  board  of  trustees.  At  Princeton  Mr.  Wilson  divided  the 
faculty  as  well  as  the  board  of  trustees.  It  is  curious  to  note 
that  some  advocates  of  the  old-fashioned  classical  course  are 
ranged  alongside  those  who  favor  sectarian  intolerance  or  who 
would  make  university  teaching  conform  to  the  economic  and 
social  views  of  the  §iwm'-owners,  the  trustees.  There  is  much 
more  than  a  lightly  held  opinion  that  certain  representatives 
of  the  privileged  classes  have  determined  upon  a  campaign  for 
the  control  of  research  and  teaching.  A  liberal  curriculum 
must  embrace  the  modern  sciences,  which  are  concerned  with 
live  and  dangerous  issues.  An  insidious  obstacle  to  progress, 
therefore,  is  a  too  exclusive  absorption  of  teacher  and  pupil  in 
the  thoughts  and  problems  of  the  dead  and  innocuous  past.  The 
University  of  Pennsylvania  possesses  not  less  but  rather  more 
academic  freedom  than  some  of  our  leading  institutions.  For 
example,  Princeton  momentarily  appears  to  be  more  conspicu- 
ously tied  to  the  classics,  to  religious  conformity,  and  to  the 
power  of  money  than  is  Harvard,  Columbia,  or  Pennsylvania. 
At  Lafayette,  Colorado,  Utah,  and  other  institutions,  these  ultra- 
conservative  forces  have  provoked  much  adverse  criticism  by 
recent  attempts  to  compel  conformity  of  opinion  and  teaching. 
But  the  history  of  education  shows  that  no  institution  can  be 
made  to  represent  for  long  the  opinions  of  any  one  man  or 
group  of  men. 

The  traditions  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  its  present 
status  and  its  probable  future,  distinguish  it  as  something  more 
than  a  local  institution.  A  great  non-conformist  of  his  day — 
I  might  even  say  rebel — and  one  of  the  greatest  intellects  this 
country  has  ever  produced,  Benjamin  Franklin,  was  not  only 
its  founder,  but  also  proposed  a  plan  for  the  education  of  youth 
in  Pennsylvania  which  some  universities  have  only  today 
advanced  far  enough  to  put  into  practice.  Its  first  provost, 
Dr.  William  Smith,  formulated  an  outline  of  college  instruction 
which  is  admitted  to  have  contained  all  that  was  best  in  the 
college  curricula  offered  by  the  institutions  of  this  country  during 
the  succeeding  hundred  years,  Joseph  Wharton's  deed  of  gift  is 


XV 

an  educational  document  which  will  take  its  rightful  place  as  a 
landmark  in  the  history  of  education.  It  outlined  the  plan  of  a 
school  which  has  proved  to  be  one  of  the  most  virile  departments 
of  the  University,  and  which  has  served  as  a  precedent  for  the 
organization  of  similar  departments  at  other  institutions.  Pro- 
vost William  Pepper,  a  reincarnation  of  the  progressive  spirit 
and  civic  enthusiasm  of  Franklin,  aroused  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  from  the  intellectual  lethargy  of  more  than  half  a 
century.  He  gave  to  it  a  Geist,  a  modern  soul — his  own.  Under 
his  successor,  Provost  Harrison,  a  member  of  the  board  of  trustees, 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania  was  hi  the  hands  of  an  able  and 
beneficent  dictator.  Unique  responsibility  seems  often  to  awaken 
unique  capacity  and  statesmanship.  The  present  administra- 
tion— twenty-four  trustees  acting  for  the  most  part  in  secrecy — 
is  striving  "to  bring  about  unanimity  of  thought  and  action,"' 
which,  taken  at  its  best,  means  only  machine-like  efficiency.- 
Any  one  trustee,  acting  on  his  sole  responsibility,  might  be 
expected  to  meet  a  situation  like  the  Nearing  case  more  accept^, 
ably  than  twenty-four  acting  as  a  group.  In  the  administration 
of  public  education  it  is  recognized  that  so  large  a  board  is  an 
irresponsible  and  relatively  inefficient  body,  especially  if  each 
member  tries  to  act  upon  his  own  judgment  and  knowledge. 
The  University  of  Pennsylvania  is  now  too  large  and  diverse  an 
organization  to  be  governed  in  this  manner.  Either  the  institu- 
tion must  grow  smaller,  if  everything  in  it  is  to  have  the  personal 
approval  of  a,  majority  of  the  board,  or  the  governing  power 
must  be  centralized  hi  some  one  individual  or  a  very  small 
group.  Despite  appearances,  I  cannot  believe  that  any  of  the 
trustees  or  any  group  of  Philadelphia  alumni  seriously  intend 
to  bring  this  University  down  from  its  present  high  estate  and 
make  it  what  it  was  in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century 
— a  small  local  concern. 

The  University  of  Pennsylvania  is  a  continuation  of  the 
University  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  founded  hi  1779,  the 
first  state  university  to  be  established  in  this  country.  In  1791 
the  University  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  College  and 
Academy  of  Philadelphia  united  under  the  name  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Pennsylvania,  with  the  governor  of  the  state  as  president 
of  its  board  of  trustees,  and  a  charter  requiring  that  "the  trustees 


XVI 

shall  annually  lay  a  statement  of  the  funds  of  the  institution 
before  the  legislature  of  the  commonwealth."  The  idea  of  what 
a  university  is,  varies  with  time  and  circumstance.  The  great 
universities  of  England  comprise  a  number  of  colleges.  If  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  would  unite  with  State  College,  the 
University  of  Pittsburgh,  and  perhaps  other  institutions,  to 
form  a  single  corporate  body,  the  commonwealth  of  Pennsyl- 
vania could  build  up  an  educational  institution  which  no  privately 
endowed  university  could  ever  hope  to  rival. 

The  issue  is  a  great  one,  worthy  of  the  imagination  of 
Benjamin  Franklin,  William  Smith,  and  William  Pepper.  Back 
of  the  Nearing  case  is  the  problem  of  financial  support  and  the 
question  of  administrative  control.  The  alternatives  are  on 
the  one  hand  private  contributions  and  control  by  private  wealth, 
and  on  the  other,  state  support  and  the  control  of  public  opinion. 
The  consequence  of  the  one  alternative  is  a  local  concern  of 
diminished  scope  and  usefulness,  and  of  the  other  a  great  state 
university,  worthy  to  represent  in  the  field  of  learning,  teaching, 
and  public  service  one  of  the  largest  and  richest  commonwealths 
in  the  American  Union. 

LIGHTNER  WITHER. 
October  1,  1915. 


CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

PAGE 

I.  THE  ACTION  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES 

1.  PROTESTS 1 

2.  THE  REAL  ISSUE 15 

II.  A  NEW  METHOD  OF  REMOVING  ASSISTANT 

PROFESSORS 

3.  THE  STAND  OP  THE  BOARD  OP  TRUSTEES 19 

4.  THE  ONE  YEAR  APPOINTMENT,  A  LEGAL  SUBTERFUGE 23 

III.    THE  LEGAL  ISSUE  DEFINED 

5.  A  LEGAL  OPINION 26 

6.  AN  ANSWER  TO  MR.  BELL 29 

IV.    RELIGIOUS  AND  EDUCATIONAL  CONFORMITY 

7.  THE  TRUSTEES  DIFFER  IN  OPINION 31 

8.  RELIGIOUS  AND  EDUCATIONAL  AIMS 39 

9.  WHAT  is  THE  OLD-TIME  RELIGION? 46 

The  Inspiration  of  Whitefield 

The  First  Home  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 

Then  and  Now 

The  "Honest  Heretic" 

"A  Wonderful  Day  at  a  Great  University" 

Mr.  George  Wharton  Pepper  on  "Billy"  Sunday 

The  Rev.  Charles  F.  Aked  on  "Billy"  Sunday 

The  Gospel  of  Hell 

"Tidings  of  Great  Joy" 

From  the  Wharton  Deed  of  Gift 

Economics  or  Religion? 

Another  Voice  from  the  Crowd 

An  Obstacle  to  Reforms 

Scott  Nearing  to  "Billy"  Sunday 

Ecclesiasticism  Doomed 

Compulsory  Chapel 

10.  WHICH  is  THE  OLD-TIME  EDUCATION? 58 

Benjamin  Franklin 

The  Rev.  William  Smith,  D.D. 

Joseph  Wharton  / 

Mr.  George  Wharton  Pepper 

The  Alumni  Register 

An  Editorial  Opinion 

(xvii) 


XV111 

V.    THE  RELATION  OF  PROFESSOR  TO  TRUSTEE      PAGE 

11.  THE  "EMPLOYEE"  IDEA 68 

12.  THE  UNIVERSITY:  AN  ASSOCIATION  OF  SCHOLARS 71 

VI.    ALUMNI  SUPPORT  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES 

13.  "WE  THE  ALUMNI" 75 

14.  THE  SUPPORTING  ALUMNI 80 

i       *••*, 
VII.    "THE  ALUMNI  REGISTER"   CAMPAIGN 

15.  A  SALARY  QUESTION 83 

16.  THE  COOPERATION  OP  DIRECTORS  AND  TRUSTEES 86 

17.  THE  ALUMNI  TRUSTEES 93 

VIII.    ASSETS  AND  LIABILITIES 

18.  GLITTERING  GENERALITIES 94 

19.  THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  WHARTON  SCHOOL 96 

IX.    THE  INVISIBLE  GOVERNMENT 

20.  THE  BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES 103 

21.  ATTENDING  CIRCUMSTANCES.  . .                       107 


THE  NEARING  CASE 


CHAPTER  I. 
The  Action  of  the  Board  of  Trustees. 

1.    PROTESTS. 

(From  the  North  American,  6/18/15.) 

Dr.  Scott  Nearing,  one  of  the  most  widely  known  members  of  the  faculty 
of  the  Wharton  School  of  Finance  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  has 
been  curtly  dismissed  from  his  position  as  assistant  professor  of  economics 
by  the  University  board  of  trustees. 

For  several  years  Doctor  Nearing's  agitation  against  child  labor  exploita- 
tion and  other  industrial  injustices  has  earned  him  the  enmity  of  powerful 
interests  in  the  financial  and  industrial  world. 

He  shared  this  enmity  with  several  other  progressive  teachers  of  the 
University  faculty,  but  two  years  ago,  when  the  matter  of  free  speech  first 
came  to  a  focus,  the  board  of  trustees  abandoned  all  plans  of  disciplining  the 
progressive  professors. 

The  trustees  then  insisted  that  they  had  no  idea  of  limiting  the  rights  of 
free  expression  on  the  part  of  the  professors.  As  proof  of  this,  the  discrimina- 
tion which  apparently  had  been  exercised  against  the  advanced  thinkers 
among  the  faculty  and  the  professors  who  had  antagonized  corporation 
influences  by  their  financial  research  and  reform  work,  was  remedied. 

The  professors  against  whom  discrimination  was  said  to  have  been 
employed  were  advanced  to  the  assistant  professorship,  to  which  they  were 
entitled,  though  some  of  them  were  still  denied  the  advance  in  salary  which 
this  ordinarily  included. 

Doctor  Nearing  was  among  the  teachers  who  thus  finally  gained  an 
assistant  professorship. 

Strong  protests  against  the  action  of  the  trustees  were  voiced,  however, 
as  soon  as  it  became  known.  Harrison  S.  Morris,  one  of  the  trustees  of  the 
estate  of  Joseph  Wharton,  who  endowed  the  Wharton  School  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania  with  a  fund  of  some  $600,000,  was  highly  indignant 
over  Doctor  Nearing's  dismissal,  and  characterized  it  as  an  attack  on  free 
speech. 

In  a  formal  statement  prepared  by  Mr.  Morris  last  night,  he  said: 

"As  one  of  the  executors  of  Joseph  Wharton,  founder  of  the  Wharton 
School  of  the  Pennsylvania  University,  I  stand  for  freedom  of  speech.  Assis- 
tant Professor  Scott  Nearing,  of  the  Wharton  School,  one  of  the  best  loved 
and  best  teachers  of  the  University,  has  been  dropped  by  the  stand-patters 
in  the  board  of  directors  for  expressing  views  opposite  to  those  held  by  great 
trusts  and  by  public  service  corporations  which  depend  on  corrupt  politics 
for  their  profits. 

CD 


"Scott  Nearing  is  a  noble  fellow,  who  has  seen  the  oppression  by 
intrenched  monopoly  and  has  spoken  of  it.  He  was  the  most  readily  punished 
of  the  group  of  useful  young  scholars  of  the  Wharton  School  who  have  given 
it  universal  fame  and  drawn  students  from  almost  every  country  on  the 
globe,  because  he  was  assistant  professor  and  could  be  dropped  without  a 
trial  by  his  peers  as  a  full  professor  could  not. 

"His  associates  have  been  equally  guilty  of  trying  to  better  social  and 
business  conditions,  but  they  are  harder  to  get.  They  have  been  of  vast  use 
to  the  present  mayor  and  his  directors  in  showing  up  the  wrongs  done  the 
city  by  corporations  whose  most  powerful  directors  sit  on  the  board  of  trustees 
of  the  University.  They  have  checked  the  United  Gas  Improvement  Com- 
pany in  its  aggression  against  the  citizens;  the  Reading  Railway  was  brought 
to  its  knees  in  its  excessive  freight  charges  on  coal  by  the  service  of  one  of 
these  professors,  and  the  talent  and  efficiency  of  the  Wharton  School  have 
been  used  wherever  possible  by  the  present  administration. 

"The  limitation  of  the  University  has  been  that  it  has  had  too  little  touch 
with  the  life  and  business  of  the  city.  These  younger  men  have  been  bridg- 
ing the  chasm,  and  for  doing  so  they  have  been  under  suspicion,  and  at  last 
one  of  their  number  has  fallen  as  a  sacrifice  on  the  city's  altar.  The  Penn- 
sylvania University  is  not  a  free  agent.  It  is  supported  by  great  sums  appro- 
priated by  our  corrupt  legislatures,  and  it  must  obey  their  wishes,  which  are 
equivalent  to  the  desires  of  the  great  corporations. 

"  My  belief  is  that  all  the  right-minded  citizens  of  the  state  would  rally 
to  the  support  of  the  University  if  it  would  free  itself  from  an  alliance  with 
Penrose,  Vare  and  McNichol,  which  controls  its  judgment  in  a  crisis  like  the 
present,  when  freedom  of  speech  is  at  stake." 

Mr.  Morris  pointed  out  also  that  to  oppose  and  expose  corporate,  munici- 
pal and  industrial  corruption  as  Doctor  Nearing  and  his  progressive  asso- 
ciates have  done,  is  a  task  directly  imposed  on  the  Wharton  School  faculty 
by  Joseph  Wharton's  deed  of  gift.  This  was  pointed  out  two  years  ago  by 
Mr.  Morris  when  the  progressive  professors  first  were  put  under  fire. 

To  emphasize  the  point  and  keep  it  constantly  before  the  eyes  of  the 
Wharton  School  faculty,  Mr.  Morris  had  several  engraved  copies  of  the  deed 
of  gift  printed,  framed  and  hung  in  the  Wharton  School  classrooms.  The 
stipulation  made  in  the  deed  of  gift,  particularly  applicable  to  the  dismissal 
of  Doctor  Nearing,  is  set  forth  as  provision  F  in  the  deed  of  gift  as  follows: 

"The  necessity  of  rigorously  punishing  by  legal  penalties  and  by  social 
exclusion  those  persons  who  commit  frauds,  betray  trusts  or  steal  public 
funds,  directly  or  indirectly.  The  fatal  consequences  to  a  community  of  any 
weak  toleration  of  such  offenses  must  be  distinctly  pointed  out  and  enforced." 

The  student  body  and  alumni  of  the  Wharton  School  are  already  pre- 
paring for  a  protest  demonstration.  Doctor  Nearing  is  very  popular  with 
his  students.  The  action  of  the  trustees,  however,  could  not  have  been  better 
timed  if  the  intention  was  to  forestall  student  demonstrations,  as  the  students 
will  scatter  during  the  vacation  season. 

Comment  was  also  made  on  the  fact  that  the  dismissal  of  Doctor  Nearing 
was  withheld  until  this  time,  when  other  universities  and  colleges  have  filled 


their  faculties.  In  the  ordinary  course  of  events,  a  college  professor  is  dis- 
missed early  in  the  spring,  so  that  he  can  seek  other  connections.  Colleges 
elect  their  faculties  in  April. 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/18/15.) 

Dr.  Scott  Nearing,  assistant  professor  of  economics  in  the  Wharton 
School  of  Finance  and  Commerce  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  has 
lost  his  position.  Views  and  utterances  on  economic  subjects  considered  too 
radical  by  members  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  University  and  the  faculty, 
and  which  several  times  in  the  past  jeopardized  his  postion,  are  believed  to 
be  the  cause  of  his  removal. 

The  action  against  the  professor  was  taken  by  the  trustees  at  their 
meeting  on  Monday.  Doctor  Nearing  received  notification  from  Provost 
Smith  yesterday  morning.  It  is  understood  his  appointment  expired  this 
spring  and  the  board  refused  to  renew  it.  Other  than  stating  he  had  been 
dropped  Doctor  Nearing  would  say  nothing. 

While  members  of  the  board  refused  to  make  any  comment  on  the  case, 
it  generally  is  believed  the  economics  professor  goes  as  the  result  of  the  long- 
continued  friction  some  of  his  views  had  caused  in  University  circles.  Surprise, 
however,  is  felt,  in  that  last  spring  Doctor  Nearing  was  promoted  from  an 
instructorship  to  the  assistant  professorship,  and  this  year  had  seemingly  had 
little  trouble. 

Doctor  Schelling,  the  orator  of  the  day  at  the  commencement  exercises, 
of  the  University's  English  Department,  expressed  great  regret  at  Doctor 
Nearing's  leaving  the  University. 

"It  is  unfortunate  for  Doctor  Nearing,  but  more  unfortunate  for  the 
University,"  he  said. 

(From  the  North  American,  6/19/15.) 

Strong  telegrams  of  protest  against  the  summary  dismissal  of  Dr.  Scott 
Nearing  by  the  trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  were  sent  from 
this  city  yesterday  to  Governor  Brumbaugh. 

The  telegrams  urge  Governor  Brumbaugh  not  to  sign  the  $1,000,000 
appropriation  bill  for  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  until  the  University 
trustees  have  satisfied  him  that  their  dismissal  of  Doctor  Nearing  is  not 
part  payment  for  senate  votes  of  child  labor  interests  in  favor  of  the  Uni- 
versity appropriation. 

For  years  Doctor  Nearing  has  lectured  and  written  against  child  labor 
exploitation.  A  newspaper  in  Bristol,  the  home  town  of  Joseph  R.  Grundy, 
leader  of  the  Pennsylvania  child  exploiters'  fight  against  Governor  Brum- 
baugh's child  labor  laws,  some  time  ago  took  occasion  to  make  a  vitriolic 
attack  on  both  Doctor  Nearing  and  a  local  minister  who  permitted  Doctor 
Nearing  to  lecture  against  child  labor  in  his  church.  Grundy's  editor 
denounced  Doctor  Nearing's  church  lecture  against  the  greedy  exploitation  of 
helpless  children  as  sacrilege,  and  called  on  the  University  trustees  to  rid 
themselves  of  such  a  dangerous  professor. 


4 

Grundy's  senator,  Clarence  J.  Buckman,  became  chairman  of  the  senate 
appropriation  committee  this  year.  When  the  University  trustees  came 
before  this  Grundy  committee  as  applicants  for  $1,000,000  of  the  state  funds 
they  are  said  to  have  been  reminded  of  the  fact  that  Doctor  Nearing  had 
unplesantly  antagonized  "influential  men"  in  the  state  who  had  much  to 
do  with  granting  or  withholding  state  appropriations. 

Every  member  of  the  faculty,  from  Dean  McCrea,  of  the  Wharton  School, 
down  to  the  assistant  professors,  rallied  as  a  man  yesterday  to  Doctor  Near- 
ing's  support. 

The  summary  dismissal  of  Doctor  Nearing  is,  indeed,  declared  now  to 
involve  a  question  of  bad  faith  on  the  part  of  the  trustees.  The  dean  of  each 
department  in  the  University  forwards  the  full  list  of  his  teaching  staff  to  the 
board  of  trustees  each  spring,  with  recommendations  for  reappointment. 
This  custom  has  been  in  vogue  for  a  number  of  years,  because  it  enables  a 
teacher  who  is  not  reappointed  to  seek  other  employment  before  the  end  of 
the  school  year.  Usually  the  recommendations  of  the  dean  of  each  depart- 
ment are  carried  out  to  the  letter,  as  the  trustees,  of  course,  are  not  in  per- 
sonal touch  with  the  teaching  staff  and  have  not  the  opportunity  that  a  dean 
has  to  judge  the  value  of  a  teacher. 

Doctor  Nearing  was  recommended  by  Dean  McCrea  for  reappointment. 
In  the  spring,  Dean  McCrea  is  said  to  have  received  assurance  from  the 
trustees  that  everybody  recommended  by  him  would  be  reappointed. 

This  assurance  was  disregarded  entirely  when  Doctor  Nearing  was  dis- 
missed at  the  end  of  the  school  year  in  violation  of  all  customs. 

Another  violation  of  precedents  which  makes  Doctor  Nearing's  dis- 
missal unusual  is  the  fact  that  he  was  personally  notified  of  his  dismissal  by 
Provost  Smith,  and  Dean  McCrea  was  absolutely  ignored.  The  custom  is 
to  notify  the  dean  when  a  member  of  his  faculty  has  been  dismissed,  and  the 
dean  in  turn  notifies  the  dismissed  teacher. 

Dean  McCrea,  of  the  Wharton  School,  yesterday  made  it  clear  that 
Provost  Smith's  note  should  not  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that  Doctor 
Nearing's  teaching  ability  gave  any  cause  for  his  dismissal.  Dean  McCrea 
said: 

"Scott  Nearing  is  an  efficient  teacher,  an  influence  for  good  in  personal 
relationships  with  students  and  colleagues  and  an  able  and  helpful  adminis- 
trative associate." 

Despite  the  report  that  other  progressive  teachers  are  to  be  eliminated 
from  the  University  faculty  as  summarily  as  Doctor  Nearing,  the  members 
of  the  faculty  were  not  deterred  from  rallying  to  Doctor  Nearing's  support 
yesterday.  Several  of  the  most  prominent  University  professors  gave  their 
unstinted  praise  to  Doctor  Nearing's  work. 

Prof.  Clyde  L.  King  said: 

"There  is  not  a  man  on  university  faculties  anywhere  whose  motives  are 
cleaner,  whose  ideals  are  higher,  both  as  a  teacher  and  as  a  student,  than 
Scott  Nearing.  His  personal  contact  with  the  students  invariably  left  an 
impress  for  good — an  impress  that  was  effective  throughout  all  later  years. 
As  a  teacher  he  is  one  of  the  greatest  assets  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 


and  has  long  been  so.  His  loss  to  the  Wharton  School  would  be 
irreparable." 

Dr.  Simon  Patten,  professor  of  economics  in  the  Wharton  School,  is 
quoted  as  saying: 

"In  losing  Doctor  Nearing  the  University  loses  one  of  its  most  effective 
men,  a  man  of  extraordinary  ability,  of  superlative  popularity  and  a  man 
who,  to  my  mind,  exerted  the  greatest  moral  force  for  good  in  the  University. 

"  He  had  the  largest  class  in  the  University — there  were  400  in  his  class 
— and  no  one  could  have  done  his  work  better.  I  taught  his  course  fifteen 
years,  and  have  superintended  it  for  the  last  ten,  and  I  know.  It  is  not  an 
easy  thing  to  teach  400  students,  and  Doctor  Nearing  did  it  well.  Several 
men  failed  before  we  got  him." 

Despite  these  opinions  of  the  faculty,  the  University  trustees  refused  to 
make  public  their  ulterior  cause  for  forcing  Doctor  Nearing  out  of  the 
University. 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/19/15.) 

The  general  belief  that  the  "free  speech"  breach  between  the  trustees 
and  radical  members  of  the  faculty  is  widening,  is  strengthened  by  a  report 
that  Doctor  Nearing  is  not  the  only  one  from  the  Wharton  School  who  may 
be  dropped.  Following  are  six  members  of  the  faculty  who  are  said  to  be  in 
disfavor  with  the  trustees: 

Dr.  James  T.  Young,  professor  of  public  administration. 

Dr.  Carl  Kelsey,  professor  of  sociology. 

Dr.  Ward  W.  Pierson,  attorney,  professor  of  business  law. 

Dr.  Thomas  Conway,  Jr.,  professor  of  finance. 

Dr.  Clyde  L.  King,  assistant  professor  of  political  science. 

Dr.  J.  Russell  Smith,  professor  of  industry. 

Dr.  Young  formerly  was  director  of  the  Wharton  School,  but  was  deposed. 

In  view  of  the  tempest  that  Doctor  Nearing's  dismissal  has  caused,  it  is 
said  no  immediate  attempt  to  remove  these  men  is  contemplated.  It  is 
understood  that  those  holding  the  rank  of  professor  can  be  dismissed  only 
by  trial  by  their  peers  in  the  faculty. 

"This  thing  should  be  investigated  until  everything  is  cleared  up,"  said 
Mr.  Morris.  "The  whole  trouble  is  that  the  body  of  men  controlling  the 
University  controls  other  public  institutions  of  this  city." 

Without  exception  the  professors  speak  of  Doctor  Nearing  as  a  con- 
structive teacher  and  as  a  great  asset  to  the  University.  Dr.  Clyde  L.  King 
said:  "There  is  not  a  man  on  university  faculties  anywhere  whose  motives 
are  cleaner,  whose  ideals  are  higher,  both  as  a  student  and  as  a  teacher.  Scott 
Nearing's  personal  contact  with  the  students  invariably  left  an  impress  for 
good. 

"This  statement  is  made  with  full  cognizance  of  the  fact  that  he  had  in 
one  class  alone  more  than  400  students  every  year.  Not  only  here  is  Professor 
Nearing  known  as  an  effective  teacher.  Far  and  wide  among  the  university 
men  of  the  country  he  is  known  as  one  of  the  clearest  thinkers  on  current 
problems  in  the  United  States.  As  a  teacher  he  is  one  of  the  greatest  assets 


6 

of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  His  loss  to  the  Wharton  School  would 
be  irreparable." 

Doctor  Nearing  always  was  making  suggestions  and  doing  things  for  the 
betterment  of  the  Wharton  School  according  to  Dr.  J.  Russell  Smith. 
He  said: 

"I  have  heard  the  Governor  of  this  State  say  with  great  earnestness  that 
the  most  important  thing  about  a  teacher  was  his  character.  In  this  respect 
Doctor  Nearing  is  one  of  the  cleanest,  fairest,  squarest,  whitest  fellows  I 
know.  He  is  a  diligent  and  effective  teacher.  His  work  in  reconstructing  the 
Wharton  School  roster  increased  the  efficiency  of  the  whole  school.  His 
students  and  their  problems  and  the  improvement  of  the  Wharton  School  are 
always  on  his  mind." 

Dr.  Bruce  D.  Mudgett,  instructor  in  insurance  and  brokerage,  said: 
"I  have  been  associated  with  Doctor  Nearing  in  graduate  work  and  as  mem- 
ber of  the  faculty  for  the  last  six  years,  and  I  believe  he  was  one  of  the  ablest 
teachers  on  the  staff." 

Dr.  Edward  Potts  Cheyney,  professor  of  English  history,  said: 

"Doctor  Nearing's  influence  on  his  students  and  in  the  community  has 
been  valuable.  He  is  one  of  the  group  of  vigorous  and  active  teachers  who 
have  done  much  to  make  the  Wharton  School  what  it  is. 

"But  the  manner  of  Doctor  Nearing's  dismissal  raises  a  larger  question 
than  that  of  his  own  personality  and  opinions.  There  is  a  widespread, 
almost  universal,  sense  of  resentment  among  professors  of  the  University. 
It  has  been  a  most  disheartening  occurrence.  The  freedom  of  opinion  and 
its  eopression  that  was  described  by  Professor  Schelling  in  his  recent  com- 
mencement address  and  the  comparative  security  of  tenure  that  is  essential 
to  good  teaching  seem  both  to  have  been  disregarded  in  this  case. 

"Today  every  assistant  professor  in  the  University  feels  that  he  may  be 
removed  without  warning,  after  it  is  quite  too  late  to  make  an  academic 
connection  for  the  next  year.  Not  merely  assistant  professors,  but  men  of 
every  academic  grade  at  the  University  feel  themselves  humiliated  by  an 
action  that,  however  legal,  is  nevertheless  derogatory  to  their  positions  and 
destructive  to  their  proper  service.  Such  results  cannot  fail  to  bring  serious 
injury  upon  the  University." 

Dean  Roswell  C.  McCrea  issued  the  following  statement: 

"Scott  Nearing  is  an  efficient  teacher,  an  influence  for  good  in  personal 
relationships  with  students  and  colleagues  and  an  able  and  helpful  adminis- 
trative associate." 

Doctor  Nearing  still  refuses  to  talk.  "The  initiative  has  been  taken  by 
the  trustees.  It  is  up  to  them  to  explain,"  was  all  he  would  say.  A  report 
from  Harrisburg  yesterday  was  that  he  might  be  appointed  by  Governor 
Brumbaugh  to  a  State  position,  perhaps  in  the  Department  of  Factory 
Inspection. 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/21/15.) 

That  it  was  incumbent  upon  the  trustees  to  clear  the  situation  by  giving 
a  straightforward  explanation  of  the  reasons  for  retiring  Doctor  Nearing  was 


the  thought  expressed  last  night  by  Henry  Budd,  a  widely  known  attorney  and 
for  many  years  president  of  the  University  alumni  in  this  city.  Mr.  Budd  is 
one  of  many  alumni  who  have  literally  bombarded  Provost  Smith  with  letters 
asking  the  reason  for  Doctor  Nearing's  dismissal. 

Mr.  Budd  said: 

"As  an  alumnus  of  many  years'  standing,  it  seems  to  me  that  so  unusual 
a  proceeding  as  the  virtual  dismissal  of  an  instructor  without  having  given  the 
warning  which  I  understand  is  usual  in  the  spring  of  the  year  requires  explana- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  trustees.  This  seems  to  have  been  recognized  by  one 
of  the  board,  who,  according  to  one  of  the  newspapers,  referred  inquirers  to 
the  provost. 

"I  wrote  a  note  to  Doctor  Smith  last  Saturday  asking  the  reasons  for 
Doctor  Nearing's  ousting,  but  have  received  no  answer.  This  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at.  I  may  have  an  answer  tomorrow. 

"Of  course,  it  is  not  fair  to  judge  the  trustees  finally  until  they  have 
given  the  explanation  which  they  owe  not  only  to  the  alumni,  but  also  to  the 
general  public,  from  whose  funds  liberal  appropriations  have  been  made  to 
the  University. 

"But  as  the  dean  of  the  department  in  which  Doctor  Nearing  has  taught 
speaks  in  the  highest  terms  of  his  ability  and  fidelity,  and  as  Doctor  Nearing 
seems  to  be  supported  by  his  associate  instructors,  the  report  that  he  has 
suffered  because  his  views  on  certain  economic  subjects  have  not  agreed  with 
those  of  certain  gentlemen  of  the  board  of  trustees  is  the  only  explanation 
before  the  public. 

"It  does  not  appear  when  or  where  Doctor  Nearing  gave  expression  to  his 
views,  or  whether,  if  they  were  advanced  in  the  course  of  instruction,  they 
were  given  as  theories  or  fulminated  as  articles  'de  fide.'  If  the  former  be  the 
case,  then  no  fair-minded  man  can  object  to  students  being  fully  informed  of 
all  theories  upon  any  subject  within  the  scope  of  the  instructor's  chair. 

"If  the  opinions  were  expressed  outside  of  the  University,  where  neces- 
sarily Doctor  Nearing  must  speak  without  pretending  to  speak  with  the 
sanction  of  the  University,  it  would  seem  to  be  pretty  near  tyranny  to  punish 
a  man  as  a  professor  for  what  he  said  in  a  personal  capacity. 

"The  time  of  the  offensive  utterances,  if  there  have  been  any,  and  if  the 
cause  of  the  trustees'  action  is  to  be  sought  in  them,  is  also  of  interest,  for 
unless  it  was  very  recent  the  withholding  of  action  until  commencement 
would  seem  to  show  a  purpose  not  only  to  rid  the  University  of  Doctor  Near- 
ing, but  to  prevent  his  obtaining  employment  elsewhere,  at  least  for  a  season, 
a  thing  which  on  the  surface  seems  unfair,  not  to  say  cruel. 

"Of  course,  however,  the  trustees  may  have  some  excellent  reasons  for 
their  action,  which  if  they  had  made  known  would  have  forestalled  any 
adverse  criticism.  But  if  such  reason  exists  it  certainly  ought  to  be  given, 
and  promptly,  for  the  responsibilities  of  the  board  and  its  accountability  to 
the  community  will  not  permit  it  to  take  the  position  of  'sic  volo,  sic  jubeo' 
(thus  I  will,  thus  I  command). 

"The  whole  matter  is  regrettable  and  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance 
for  the  sake  of  the  reputation  of  the  University  that  the  truth  be  known." 


8 

A  demand  upon  the  trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  to  give 
their  reasons  for  dropping  Professor  Scott  Nearing  from  the  faculty  of  the 
Wharton  School  was  voiced  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Augustus  E.  Barnett  yesterday 
in  an  address  at  the  Reformed  Episcopal  Church  of  Our  Redeemer.  If  no 
reason  is  forthcoming,  Doctor  Barnett  said,  people  would  believe  that  Dr. 
Scott  Nearing  is  "a  victim  of  the  interests." 

"Free  speech  must  be  maintained  at  all  costs  in  America,"  said  Doctor 
Barnett.  "We  must  refuse  to  be  Russianized.  Professor  Scott  Nearing  is 
one  of  the  latest  victims  of  intolerance.  He  was  one  of  the  brightest  orna- 
ments of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Better  had  an  earthquake  destroy 
its  buildings  than  oust  a  man  for  daring  to  think  his  own  thoughts  and  who 
has  the  courage  of  his  convictions.  I  speak  as  the  father  of  two  sons  who  are 
now  in  the  University  and  who  have  been  inspired  and  stimulated  whole- 
somely by  this  professor. 

"I  resent  the  action  of  the  trustees,  and  as  one  of  a  large  number  demand 
the  reasons  for  his  retirement.  Until  they  are  given,  I  shall  believe  that  he 
is  a  victim  of  the  interests.  Men  like  Mr.  Grundy  do  not  like  to  see  public 
money  going  to  support  a  man  who  holds  the  views  Professor  Nearing  does 
on  child  labor  and  wages.  One  of  the  most  pernicious  effects  of  rich  men  like 
John  D.  Rockefeller  endowing  a  univeristy  is  that  men  like  Doctor  Nearing 
are  muzzled  if  they  are  cowards  and  are  thrown  out  if  they  are  heroic  enough 
to  refuse  the  muzzle. 

"It  is  the  same  in  the  church.  Let  any  one  man  pay  the  bills  of  the 
church  and  he  thinks  he  owns  a  chattel  mortgage  on  the  preacher." 

(From  the  Evening  Ledger,  6/21/15.) 

The  Baptist  Ministers  came  out  today  for  a  hearing  for  the  deposed 
instructor  at  their  weekly  meeting,  held  this  morning  in  the  First  Baptist 
Church,  at  Seventeenth  and  Sansom  Streets. 

After  considerable  discussion  the  following  resolution  was  passed,  intro- 
duced by  the  Rev.  W.  Quay  Roswell,  pastor  of  the  Fifth  Baptist  Church, 
Eighteenth  and  Spring  Garden  Streets. 

"Resolved,  That  we  express  our  regret  over  the  action  of  the  trustees  of 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania  in  dismissing  Dr.  Scott  Nearing  from  the 
faculty  of  the  Wharton  School  on  grounds  they  have  not  disclosed  to  the 
public.  Their  silence  concerning  the  reason  for  his  dismissal  we  believe  to  be 
a  blow  to  free  speech.  Our  action  in  this  protest  we  do  not  wish  to  be  con- 
sidered an  approval  of  the  doctrines  advocated  by  Professor  Nearing  or  an 
attempt  to  pass  judgment  on  his  case.  But  we  believe  that  the  public  has  a 
right  to  know  the  causes  that  led  up  to  his  dismissal." 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/22/15.) 

Measures  were  devised  yesterday  by  Philadelphia  alumni  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania  to  get  from  its  trustees  an  explanation  for  the  drop- 
ping of  Dr.  Scott  Nearing  from  the  faculty  of  the  Wharton  School  of  Finance 
and  Commerce.  The  movement  to  unite  members  of  the  faculty  and  grad- 


uates  in  a  central  working  force  took  shape  through  the  organization  of  a 
Committee  of  Twenty. 

Letters  were  drafted  by  the  committee  and  were  mailed  last  night  to  all 
members  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  demanding  the  facts  in  the  Nearing  case. 
At  the  same  time  steps  were  taken  to  make  the  Nearing  case  a  national  issue 
by  bringing  it  before  the  new  American  Association  of  University  Professors, 
which  was  organized  a  few  months  ago  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining 
academic  freedom  of  speech. 

The  letter  to  the  trustees  from  the  Committee  of  Twenty  follows: 

"We  are,  as  alumni  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  very  directly 
interested  in  the  discussion  occasioned  by  the  abrupt  termination  of  the 
connection  of  Dr.  Scott  Nearing  with  the  University.  It  has  been  generally 
assumed  that  this  action  on  your  part  has  been  due  to  the  views  on  social  and 
economic  questions  expressed  by  Doctor  Nearing.  For  two  years  in  the  press 
throughout  the  United  States  it  has  been  repeatedly  stated  that  Doctor 
Nearing  would  be  dismissed  because  his  views  differed  from  those  of  the 
trustees.  This  dismissal  has  now  become  a  fact,  and  the  press  persists  in 
placing  it  upon  these  grounds.  If  unexplained,  we  believe  the  public  generally 
will  accept  these  grounds  as  true  ones.  In  view  of  the  circumstances,  and 
the  relation  of  the  University  to  the  public,  we  deem  it  of  the  utmost  impor- 
tance that  the  trustees  state  clearly  the  reasons  for  their  decision,  so  that 
the  alumni  may  be  able  to  take  such  action  as  seems  to  them  appropriate  on 
undisputed  facts. 

"The  public  has  come  to  consider  our  institutions  of  learning  as  centers 
where  current  problems  can  be  discussed,  and  the  slightest  suggestion  of  an 
effort  on  the  part  of  any  group  of  individuals  to  use  their  power  over  the  means 
of  livelihood  of  professors  to  influence  the  expression  of  this  thought  affects  the 
confidence  of  the  whole  community  in  the  sincerity  of  opinions  voiced  by  all 
professors  and  instructors. 

"In  order  that  you  may  not  feel  that  this  is  the  opinion  of  only  a  few 
alumni,  and  in  order  that  you  may  have  for  your  consideration  the  attitude  of 
a  larger  number  than  can  now  be  called  together,  we  are  sending  a  copy  of 
this  letter  to  certain  groups  of  the  alumni  with  the  request  that  they  write  to 
you  expressing  their  own  opinions  thereon." 

The  letter  was  signed  by  Robert  J.  Sterrett,  '10  L.;  T.  Henry  Walnut, 
'02  C.;  Dr.  Daniel  Longacre,  '81  M.;  Ferdinand  H.  Graser,  '03  C.;  Henry 
J.  Gibbons,  '01  C.;  S.  Gaitland  Horan,  '13  W.;  Edgar  D.  Faries,  77  C.; 
O.  Charles  Broderson,  '03  L.;  Arthur  E.  Hutchinson,  '09  L.;  Albert  A. 
Faught,  '03  C.  and  '06  L.;  Henry  Beates,  '79  M.;  Everett  H.  Brown,  '10  C.; 
C.  W.  Hitschler,  '12  W.;  Edward  J.  Horwarth,  '12  W.;  Horace  Hayday, 
'11  W.;  Horace  Teller  Fleisher,  '06  W.;  Cornelius  D.  Scully,  '01  C.;  James 
F.  McCoy,  '95  C.;  A.  Mercer  Parker,  '11  C.,  and  W.  Lane  Shannon,  '11  W. 

On  behalf  of  alumni  of  the  Wharton  School,  R.  H.  Wallace,  Jr.,  who 
was  president  of  the  Wharton  School  Association  until  his  graduation  last 
week,  made  this  statement: 

"The  undergraduates  have  always  been  strong  friends  of  Doctor  Nearing 
and  have  always  been  firm  believers  in  free  speech  at  the  University,  At 


10 

the  last  meeting  of  the  Wharton  Association  a  strong  resolution  was  passed 
upholding  Doctor  Nearing  and  freedom  of  speech  at  the  University. 

"I  have  talked  this  over  with  a  number  of  graduates  and  it  seems  to  be 
the  consensus  of  opinion  that  it  was  unjust  to  dismiss  Doctor  Nearing  at  this 
time.  This  is  unquestionably  the  opinion  of  the  Wharton  School  students. 
We  may  not  agree  with  everything  he  says,  but  we  certainly  agree  with  the 
principles  for  which  he  is  fighting.  He,  more  than  any  other  professor  in  the 
Wharton  School,  has  taught  students  how  to  think." 

Benjamin  C.  Marsh,  former  president  of  the  Pennsylvania  Society  to 
Protect  Children  from  Cruelty  and  now  head  of  various  charitable  organiza- 
tions in  New  York,  has  written  an  open  letter  to  Provost  Smith,  saying: 

"Let  me  congratulate  you  upon  having  dismissed  Dr.  Scott  Nearing 
from  the  University  of  Pennsylvania!  It  is  an  unnecessary  proof  that  the 
University  is  a  kept  institution  of  learning.  It  proves  beyond  any  possibility 
of  doubt  that  you  do  not  wish  to  have  discussion  in  the  University,  that  you 
do  not  wish  to  have  your  young  men  think;  that  the  University  exists  to 
perpetuate  privilege,  and  that  it  will  not  permit  any  man  to  express  his  honest 
opinion  as  a  professor. 

"  You  have  chosen  the  time  well.  You  probably  have  secured  the  appro- 
priation from  the  State  Legislature  for  the  next  two  years,  while  if  you  had 
had  the  nerve  to  do  this  while  the  Legislature  was  in  session  you  probably 
would  not  have  gotten  so  much. 

"Again  let  me  congratulate  you  upon  the  outrageous  conduct  of  the 
trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  which  has  done  more  to  forward 
true  progress  than  Doctor  Nearing  could  have  done  as  a  professor.  I  only 
hope  that  the  other  professors  will  boycott  the  University,  while  we  can  safely 
rely  upon  action  by  the  student  body.  Are  you  thinking  of  substituting  the 
Rev.  William  A.  Sunday  for  Doctor  Nearing?" 

(From  the  North  American,  6/22/15.) 

Prof.  Samuel  McCune  Lindsay,  of  Columbia,  who  has  been  in  Philadel- 
phia investigating  the  dismissal  of  Professor  Nearing,  said  today: 

"When  I  speak  about  this  case  I  do  so  as  an  alumnus  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  and  a  former  professor  there.  Nearing  was  the  best  student 
in  the  next  to  the  last  class  that  I  taught  there,  and  it  was  rather  a  large  class, 
too,  in  sociology.  He  was-  then  appointed  an  instructor  and  reappointed 
annually  for  eight  years.  Promotion  was  unquestionably  held  back  from  him 
but  at  last  it  came,  and  last  year  he  was  made  an  associate  professor  on  a 
one-year  contract. 

"Last  spring  the  faculty  recommended  him  for  re-engagement.  His 
record  both  as  a  student  and  as  a  teacher  was  very  high.  I  took  pains  to  look 
this  up,  and  his  record  is  flawless,  and  is  one  of  the  best  of  the  forty  pro- 
fessors and  instructors  in  his  department. 

"Right  here  is  where  I  think  the  whole  system  at  Pennsylvania  is  wrong. 
I  believe  that  the  trustees  should  confine  themselves  to  the  financial  problems 
of  the  University  and  with  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  such  recommenda- 


11 

tions  on  other  matters  as  their  faculty  or  other  representatives  may  make. 
But  the  Pennsylvania  trustees,  of  whose  intelligence  in  these  matters  I  have  a 
poor  opinion,  are  not  content  to  let  the  faculty  decide  educational  matters. 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/23/15.) 

The  Wharton  School  undergraduate  committee  in  the  letter  calls  the 
dismissal  of  Nearing  an  "outrage,"  and  says  that  for  "two  years  we  have 
been  held  up  to  the  ridicule  of  the  student  bodies  of  every  university  of  our 
size  and  standing  in  the  country  because  of  the  reactionary  attitude  of  our 
board  of  trustees  toward  academic  freedom." 

The  letter  in  full  follows: 

"Dr.  Scott  Nearing  has  been  dismissed  from  the  teaching  staff  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania.  For  two  years  we  have  been  held  up  to  the 
ridicule  of  the  student  bodies  of  every  university  of  our  size  and  standing  in 
the  country  because  of  the  reactionary  attitude  of  our  board  of  trustees 
toward  academic  freedom. 

"There  is  not  a  student  of  the  Wharton  School,  past  or  present,  of  any 
shade  of  political  opinion,  who  believes  Doctor  Nearing's  liberal  views  and 
earnest  personality  do  him  harm.  Men  who  have  disagreed  with  him  on  every 
conceivable  subject  admit  that  he  at  least  forced  them  to  think  for  them- 
selves. But  real  harm  has  been  done  to  the  University  as  a  result  of  this 
recent  decision,  the  responsibility  for  which  rests  squarely  on  the  board  of 
trustees. 

"We  have  a  right  to  expect  that  the  board  of  trustees  shall  pay  less 
attention  to  their  personal  interests  and  give  more  heed  to  their  trust.  Their 
action  in  waiting  for  the  closing  of  the  University  before  taking  this  step  can 
only  be  regarded  with  suspicion  by  the  students,  when  they  recall  how  under- 
graduate organizations  have  met  similar  attempts  in  the  past. 

"Do  you  want  to  give  some  real  help  to  the  University?  Write  or 
telegraph  at  once  to  the  provost  and  to  several  of  the  trustees,  giving  your 
opinion  of  this  outrage,  and  demanding  Doctor  Nearing's  retention.  A  com- 
mittee of  alumni  is  now  requesting  a  public  inquiry  into  the  facts  of  the  case. 
If  you  can  send  duplicate  copies  of  your  letters  and  the  replies  received  to  us, 
these  duplicates  are  likely  to  be  most  valuable  in  forming  conclusions. 

"Strong,  vigorous  action  on  your  part  must  show  the  trustees  that  their 
action  is  condemned  by  the  student  body."  ^ 

»   '         v 
(From  the  North  American,  6/23/15.) 

Director  Cooke  in  his  statement  concerning  Doctor  Nearing's  removal 
said: 

"The  dismissal  of  Dr.  Scott  Nearing  comes  as  a  distinct  shock.  The 
trustees  of  the  University  probably  felt  that  a  summary  demand  for  the 
resignation  of  one  of  their  best  known  teachers,  made  after  the  close  of  the 
school  year,  would  excite  a  few  days'  comment  and  some  bitter  criticism  and 
then  would  be  forgotten." 


12 

(From  the  North  American,  6/25/15.) 

Protests  against  the  dismissal  of  Dr.  Scott  Nearing  by  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  trustees  as  an  infringement  on  academic  freedom  of  speech 
continued  to  pile  up  yesterday.  Thomas  Robins,  financier  and  staunch 
supporter  of  the  university,  took  particularly  strong  exception  to  the  trustees' 
silent  attitude  of  "the  public  be  damned." 

In  a  letter  addressed  to  Provost  Smith,  Mr.  Robins  voiced  his  protest  as 
follows: 

"MY  DEAR  PROVOST: — You  know  that  I  have  been  and  am  an  ardent 
supporter  of  your  administration.  As  provost  you  have  honored  me  with 
two  appointments,  both  to  boards  where  the  performance  of  responsible  duty 
has  been  at  once  a  pleasure  and  a  privilege. 

"I  therefore  write  as  a  friend,  a  candid  friend,  to  tell  you  of  the  morti- 
fication I  feel  at  the  position  in  which  the  trustees  have  placed  themselves 
before  the  entire  country,  as  a  result  of  their  treatment  of  Dr.  Scott  Nearing 
and  of  their  subsequent  action,  when  questioned  as  to  that  treatment. 

"Believe  me,  the  'public  be  damned*  attitude  cannot  be  assumed  by  any 
one  holding  a  position  of  public  trust,  and  especially  is  that  true  when  those 
administering  that  trust  have  just  received  state  aid  to  the  amount  of  a 
million  dollars  of  the  people's  money. 

"As  a  result  of  the  Nearing  dismissal,  your  board  of  trustees  is  placed 
in  the  unenviable  position  of  invoking  the  privilege  of  the  star  chamber  to 
cover  their  motives  for  discharging  a  professor  whose  standard  of  duty  has 
been  high,  whose  success  as  an  instructor  has  been  great,  who  has  made 
notable  contributions  to  the  literature  of  his  subject,  and  who  has  set  an 
example  of  fearlessness  in  the  discussion  of  vital  social  questions. 

"They  have  not  hurt  Nearing;  they  have  given  him  an  opportunity  to 
learn  how  high  an  estimate  has  been  formed  of  his  character  and  teaching  by 
the  public  and  his  associates;  but  they  have  injured  the  university  in  the 
eyes  of  the  learned  world  to  an  extent  that  cannot  be  now  estimated  and 
they  have  served  notice  on  the  public  that  parents  who  wish  their  sons  to  hear 
in  class  a  free  discussion  of  economic  and  social  questions  that  they  must 
meet  and  solve  in  after  life  had  better  send  them  anywhere  but  to  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania. 

"Very  sincerely  your  friend, 

"THOMAS  ROBINS." 

(From  the  Evening  Bulletin,  6/28/15.) 

Declaring  that  the  action  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  was  an  "outrage,  and 
BO  un-American  in  principle  as  to  arouse  the  indignation  of  every  right 
thinking  citizen,"  the  Central  Labor  Union  yesterday  unanimously  passed  a 
resolution  protesting  against  the  dropping  of  Scott  Nearing  as  "a  violation  of 
the  right  of  free  speech  and  as  persecution  of  an  instructor  whose  only  offence 
is  that  he  served  the  public  faithfully." 

The  resolution  also  pledged  the  Central  Labor  Union  to  "stand  with  the 
public  until  the  U.  of  P.  has  been  cleared  of  the  stain  brought  upon  its  name 
by  the  trustees." 


13 

The  Rev.  Homer  J.  Vosburgh,  of  the  North  Baptist  Church,  of  Camden, 
in  a  sermon  last  night  on  "The  Case  of  Scott  Nearing,"  condemned  the 
trustees  for  the  way  in  which  they  had  dropped  Mr.  Nearing,  and  for  their 
refusal  to  state  frankly  their  reasons,  and  declared  that  action  was  a  blow  to 
the  standing  of  the  University. 

Dr.  John  Dewey,  of  Columbia  University,  and  president  of  the  American 
Association  of  College  Professors,  has  taken  sides  with  Dr.  Nearing,  and  in  an 
open  letter  condemns  the  action  of  Chancellor  Day,  of  Syracuse  University, 
who  recently  came  out  with  a  defence  of  the  action  of  the  U.  of  P.  trustees. 

The  Survey,  a  New  York  magazine  of  ultra-progressive  tendencies,  in  its 
latest  issue  says  that  the  public  must  infer  from  the  method  used  and  the 
silence  of  the  trustees  that  the  charge  is  true  that  the  dropping  of  Scott 
Nearing  was  part  of  an  effort  to  control  the  opinions  of  teachers. 

(From  the  New  York  Tribune,  6/27/15.) 

More  letters  and  telegrams  protesting  against  the  dropping  of  Professor 
Nearing  were  given  out  by  Mr.  Morris  today.  J.  Oseroff,  of  Pittsburgh,  a 
former  pupil  of  Dr.  Nearing,  wrote  to  Provost  Smith  protesting  against  Dr. 
Nearing's  removal.  He  said: 

"Dr.  Nearing's  dismissal,  if  allowed  to  stand,  will  prove  conclusively 
that  outside  influences  persist  in  determining  the  educational  policy  at  Penn- 
sylvania. If  these  influences  can  beat  the  professors  into  submission  so  that 
they  are  afraid  to  express  themselves  when  they  see  fit,  then  the  situation  is  a 
hopeless  one  and  the  university,  under  the  circumstances,  can  no  longer 
be  an  influence  for  good  in  the  community." 

(From  the  North  American,  7/14/15.) 

The  Pennsylvania  Associated  Alumni  of  Rochester  and  Vicinity  not  only 
differs  from  the  thirty-three  self-appointed  spokesmen  for  all  the  alumni, 
but  have  taken  formal  action  to  notify  the  trustees  that  their  position  does 
not  meet  with  the  association's  approval. 

The  Rochester  association,  of  which  John  F.  W.  Whitebeck  is  president 
and  Dr.  Irving  T.  Clark,  secretary,  in  formal  session  approved  resolutions 
condemning  the  action  of  the  trustees,  in  limiting  the  faculties  of  the  Uni- 
versity, and  demanded  that  the  trustees,  who,  so  far,  are  hiding  the  reasons 
for  the  dismissal  of  Professor  Nearing  under  a  veil  of  secrecy,  should  state 
their  attitude  publicly. 

Individual  members  of  the  association  assert  that  in  their  belief  the 
resolutions  more  closely  represent  the  general  feeling  among  all  the  alumni 
than  the  recent  defense  of  the  trustees  by  the  thirty-three  Philadelphians  who 
oppose  Nearing. 

The  resolutions  are  as  follows: 

"WHEREAS,  The  newspapers  of  Philadelphia  and  to  a  less  extent  the 
newspapers  of  other  parts  of  the  United  States,  have  recorded  the  fact  that 
the  trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  have  refused  to  renew  the 


14 

engagement  of  Scott  Nearing  as  assistant  professor  of  economics  in  the 
Wharton  School  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania;  and 

"WHEREAS,  The  newspaper  comments  have  spread  the  impression  that 
this  action  is  due  to  disapproval  on  the  part  of  the  trustees  of  the  conclusions 
of  Mr.  Nearing,  drawn  after  a  study  of  economic  conditions,  and  incorporated 
in  his  teachings  in  the  Wharton  School;  and 

"WHEREAS,  This  action  on  the  part  of  the  trustees  is  construed  to  mean 
that  the  trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  intend  to  limit  arbitrarily 
the  independence  of  thought  and  the  freedom  of  expression  of  conclusions  on 
the  part  of  recognized  experts  in  the  faculties  of  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania; and 

"WHEREAS,  The  trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  have  seen  fit 
not  to  express  their  reasons  for  this  action  publicly;  now,  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  By  the  Pennsylvania  Associated  Alumni  of  Rochester  and 
Vicinity,  that  this  protest  be  sent  to  the  trustees  of  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania concerning  their  action: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Pennsylvania  Associated  Alumni 
of  Rochester  and  Vicinity  that  the  trustees  should  recede  from  their  policy 
of  silence  in  this  matter  and  state  publicly  their  attitude; 

"Resolved  That  the  Pennsylvania  Associated  Alumni  of  Rochester  and 
Vicinity  strongly  represent  to  the  trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
that  they  disapprove  of  any  action  that  would  lead  to  the  impression  that 
freedom  of  investigation,  freedom  of  the  expression  of  conclusions  and  free- 
dom of  teaching  are  limited  to  the  faculties  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
by  its  board  of  trustees." 


2.    REAL  ISSUE.* 

Professor  Nearing's  appointment  as  assistant  professor  was 
recommended  to  the  provost  and  board  of  trustees  by  the  faculty 
of  the  Wharton  School  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  The 
board  of  trustees  refused  to  accept  the  recommendation  of  one 
of  its  faculties,  and  declined  to  reappoint  Professor  Nearing.  In 
doing  this,  the  board  acted  clearly  within  its  legal  right,  but  did 
it  exert  its  legal  right  wisely  and  justly  in  this  particular  instance? 

So  far  as  I  know,  this  action  of  the  board  of  trustees  is  the 
only  instance  of  a  refusal  to  accept  the  favorable  recommendation 
of  a  faculty  in  regard  to  an  appointment.  The  burden  of 
responsibility  for  this  exceptional  action  rests  entirely  upon  those 
members  of  the  board  who  voted  not  to  appoint  Professor  Nearing. 

Under  the  circumstances,  a  clear  statement  of  the  reason  for 
this  unusual  action  was  to  have  been  expected.  The  board  of 
trustees,  however,  assigns  no  motives  for  its  action.  In  effect 
it  throws  down  the  gage  to  the  faculty,  which  recommended 
Professor  Nearing's  appointment,  and  opens  a  battle  here  for 
academic  freedom,  which  has  been  fought  at  so  many  other 
universities  in  our  own  and  other  times.  It  is,  indeed,  the  first 
move  made  by  a  board  of  trustees  of  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania to  assert  its  right  to  censor  the  opinions  of  men  whom 
it  has  called  or  may  call  to  membership  in  one  of  its  faculties. 
It  is  not,  however,  the  first  move  in  this  direction  to  be  made  by 
individual  members  of  the  board. 

For  the  trustees  of  an  institution  of  learning  even  to  appear 
to  control  the  opinions  of  its  faculties,  is  ussually  the  first  step 
toward  the  deterioration  and  disintegration  of  the  institution  of 
which  they  are  legally  the  administrators  in  trust  for  the  entire 
community.  Their  refusal  to  accept  a  faculty's  recommendation 
without  notice  to  the  faculty  must  be  resented  by  every  self- 
respecting  member  of  the  university  faculty.  ^ 

When  they  notified  Professor  Nearing,  through  the  provost, 
without  previous  warning,  and  after  the  fifteenth  day  of  June, 
that  his  services  would  no  longer  be  required  by  the  institution, 

*  The  fublif  ledger  »»<!  ttw  North  American,  6/20/15, 

(15) 


16 

they  did  Professor  Nearing  an  injustice  which  many  will  con- 
sider an  attempt  at  vindictive  punishment,  because  this  delayed 
action  prevented  Professor  Nearing  from  seeking  an  acceptable 
appointment  elsewhere. 

If  assistant  professors  and  instructors  are  not  to  be  reap- 
pointed,  even  though  recommended  for  appointment  by  their 
colleagues,  simple  justice  as  well  as  good  business  administration 
requires  that  they  be  apprised  of  the  fact  not  later  than  February 
1st  preceding  the  proposed  termination  of  their  services. 

I  hold  no  brief  for  Professor  Nearing.  I  respect  his  honesty, 
his  courage  and  his  social  sympathies;  but  I  do  not  agree  with 
all  of  his  economic  views,  nor  do  I  approve  some  of  the  methods 
which  he  employs  in  placing  his  views  before  the  public.  Never- 
theless, as  a  member  of  a  faculty,  I  would  consider  differences  in 
opinion  and  method  as  immaterial,  and,  if  called  upon,  I  should 
recommend  the  appointment  of  men  with  whom  I  disagreed 
even  more  than  with  Professor  Nearing;  and  experience  leads 
me  to  expect  that  if  I  waited  long  enough,  I  should  find  in  some 
cases  that  I  had  been  wrong,  and  the  opinions  and  methods  with 
which  I  disagreed  were  right. 

The  conflict  which  this  action  of  the  board  of  trustees  has 
unhappily  forced  upon  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  is  a  part 
of  the  universal  struggle  of  democracy  against  autocracy.  An 
essential  feature  of  the  democratic  form  of  government,  whether 
in  state  or  in  university,  is  tolerance  of  opinion.  The  distin- 
guishing characteristic  of  an  autocracy  is  intolerance.  Other 
common  characteristics  are  secrecy,  fear  of  public  opinion, 
unenlightenment  and  aggressive  self-assertion. 

I  write  as  an  alumnus  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
and  a  citizen  of  this  commonwealth,  because  I  consider  it  impor- 
tant that  the  alumni  and  the  public  should  know  that  no  faculty 
within  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  was  represented  in  the 
recent  action  of  the  board  of  trustees. 

Every  alumnus  should  have  borne  in  upon  him  that  this 
action  will  most  seriously  interfere  with  the  development  of  every 
department  of  the  University.  Professor  Nearing's  case  is  not 
unique.  The  appointment  of  every  assistant  professor  is  virtually 
an  annual  appointment,  and  this  action  of  the  board  of  trustees 
is  notification  that  no  assistant  professor  or  instructor  can  be  sure 


17 

until  after  the  June  meeting  of  the  board  that  his  services  will  be 
required  for  the  following  year. 

How  is  the  head  of  a  department  to  retain  the  staff  of 
assistant  professors  and  instructors,  which  he  may  have  put 
together  after  much  thought,  toil,  and  personal  sacrifice?  I  have 
never  had  a  good  instructor  in  my  own  department  whom  I  have 
not  held  at  times  for  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  against 
financial  inducements  offered  elsewhere  by  citing  the  great  oppor- 
tunity here  for  independent  scientific  work  or  by  appealing  to 
his  loyalty  to  the  department  and  to  the  institution. 

At  one  blow  academic  freedom  and  loyalty  are  struck  down, 
and  who  can  now  advise  a  man  in  his  department,  during  the 
spring  months,  to  reject  the  call  of  some  other  institution,  when  it 
is  known  that  even  the  recommendation  of  an  entire  faculty 
availeth  not  against  a  few  members  of  the  board  of  trustees? 

It  must  be  remembered  that  the  development  and  present 
prestige  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  are  derived  from  the 
labors  of  its  faculty  members,  and  not  from  its  board  of  trustees, 
distinguished  as  many  of  these  may  be  in  other  than  academic  or 
scholarly  pursuits.  Shall  those  who  have  made  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  what  it  is  be  considered  incapable  of  deciding 
whether  a  particular  assistant  professor  is  a  suitable  member  of 
the  faculty  or  not? 

I  must  write  as  I  have,  albeit  with  deep  regret,  because 
otherwise  I  could  no  longer  contend,  as  often  I  must,  against 
those  who  claim  in  public  places  that  professors  at  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  are  virtually  employees  of  a  few  representatives 
of  inherited  or  acquired  wealth  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia.  If 
this  opinion  gains  ground,  no  self-respecting  scholar  will  accept, 
an  appointment  at  this  University,  and  even  students  will  hesitate 
to  come  to  an  institution  to  be  taught  a  brand  of  knowledge 
which  they  believe  must  receive  the  imprimatur  of  a  small  group 
of  men  who  will  not  tolerate  differences  of  opinion. 

Moreover,  I  see  and  would  avoid  the  effect  of  this  conviction 
on  the  people  of  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  and  on  its  representa- 
tives in  the  state  legislature,  for  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
derives  its  warrant  as  an  educational  institution  through  its 
charter  from  the  commonwealth.  Will  the  citizens  of  this  great 
state  permit  its  greatest  institution  of  learning  to  be  crippled  in 


18 

academic  resources,  in  order  that  a  small  group  of  alumni  may 
censor  opinions  of  which  they  disapprove? 

The  University  of  Pennsylvania  is  now  at  the  parting  of  the 
ways.  Under  the  guidance  of  a  few  great  provosts  this  institution 
has  been  elevated  from  the  academic  level  of  a  small  local  concern 
to  that  of  a  real  university  of  many  faculties,  with  a  world-wide 
reputation.  Are  some  alumni  so  determined  that  students  of  the 
institution  and  citizens  of  this  commonwealth  shall  be  denied  the 
enlightenment  of  new  knowledge  that  they  are  willing  to  see  this 
great  University,  the  creation  of  many  devoted  and  loyal  scholars, 
sink  back  into  the  academic  insignificance  of  the  first  half  of  the 
last  century? 


CHAPTER  II. 
A  New  Method  of  Removing  Assistant  Professors. 

3.    THE  STAND  OF  THE  BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES. 

(From  the  North  American,  6/18/15.) 

The  trustees  who  are  said  to  have  led  the  fight  against  Doctor  Nearing 
are  Randal  Morgan,  of  the  United  Gas  Improvement  Company;  E.  T.  Stotes- 
bury ;  J.  Levering  Jones,  corporation  attorney;  Louis  Madeira,  of  the  Newton 
Coal  Company,  and  George  Wharton  Pepper,  noted  lawyer  and  leading  lay- 
man of  the  high  church  movement  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
Doctor  Nearing  is  known  to  hold  liberal  religious  views. 

Two  of  the  trustees,  Wharton  Barker  and  J.  B.  Lippincott,  are  reported 
to  have  stood  by  Doctor  Nearing  to  the  end  and  to  have  insisted  on  being 
recorded  as  voting  against  the  demand  for  Nearing's  resignation.  None  of 
the  trustees,  however,  would  discuss  the  action  last  night. 

"I  cannot  talk  about  the  action  of  the  board  of  trustees,  Provost  Smith 
will  give  out  all  information  that  is  to  be  given  out,"  said  Louis  Madeira. 
"1  don't  know  whether  Provost  Smith  is  in  town  or  not,  but  I  will  not  discuss 
the  matter  one  way  or  another." 

"I  don't  care  to  discuss  the  matter  or  say  how  I  voted,"  said  J.  B. 
Lippincott. 

Randal  Morgan,  at  his  Chestnut  Hill  home,  declined  to  be  interviewed. 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/19/15.) 

At  the  meeting  last  Monday,  when  Nearing  was  dropped,  there  was  an 
informal  agreement  among  the  trustees  not  to  discuss  the  case  for  publication. 

Randal  Morgan,  first  vice-president  of  the  United  Gas  Improvement 
Company,  is  a  trustee  of  the  University.  He  denied  that  Professor  Nearing 
was  dropped  because  he  had  shown  any  hostility  to  public  service  cor- 
porations. 

"That's  foolish,"  said  Mr.  Morgan. 

Mr.  Morgan  referred  all  requests  for  information  to  Provost  Smith. 

Provost  Smith  was  not  at  the  University  yesterday  afternoon,  but  it  was 
stated  there  that  he  would  not  discuss  the  case. 

"The  board  of  trustees  did  what  it  thought  its  duty.  No  explanation 
is  necessary  at  this  time,  nor  will  any  be  forthcoming  in  future."  This  was 
J.  Levering  Jones'  comment  on  the  Nearing  affair. 

"To  make  any  explanation,"  said  Mr.  Jones,  "would  be  absolutely  futile. 
It  would  not  be  taken  as  final  and  would  simply  lengthen  the  controversy. 
Furthermore,  why  should  we  make  an  explanation  of  what  we  chose  to  do  as 
trustees? 

09) 


20 

"It  was  not  a  question  of  dismissal.  Doctor  Nearing's  appointment 
expired  and  we  thought  it  best  not  to  renew  it.  Besides,  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  is  not  a  public  institution.  It  is  only  quasi-public.  We  are 
answerable  only  to  our  own  sense  of  duty  and  responsibility.  No  one  has 
the  right  to  question  us. 

"I  don't  see  any  cause  for  public  discussion.  Doctor  Nearing  has  said 
nothing,  the  trustees  are  silent,  so  why  drag  the  matter  into  the  public  prints? 
It  is  simply  a  question  between  the  University  and  Doctor  Nearing. 

"The  University  will  take  care  of  Doctor  Nearing.  In  its  175  years  of 
existence  it  has  never  misused  a  professor  or  any  executive  officer.  We  are 
going  to  be  fair  with  Doctor  Nearing." 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/18/15.) 

None  of  the  trustees  would  comment  on  the  meeting.  The  remarks  of 
Louis  C.  Madeira  can  be  used  to  express  the  opinions  of  practically  all  the 
trustees.  He  said  he  would  not  talk  on  the  matter  from  any  angle.  "There 
is  only  one  man  who  has  the  corporate  power  to  speak,  and  that  is  the  Provost 
of  the  University.  I  will  not  say  whether  there  was  a  meeting  on  Monday  or 
any  other  day,  nor  will  I  discuss  the  subject  at  all." 

Provost  Smith  was  not  in  the  city  yesterday,  and  all  other  members  of 
the  board  took  the  same  stand  as  Mr.  Madeira.  The  report  of  the  meeting 
as  it  was  being  discussed  on  the  campus  yesterday  was  to  the  effect  that  there 
was  a  meeting  of  trustees  on  Monday,  and  that  after  two  hours  of  argument 
it  had  been  decided  to  request  Assistant  Professor  Nearing  to  vacate  his  chair, 
which  was  created  about  a  year  ago. 

(From  the  North  American,  6/19/15.) 

The  violations  of  precedents,  the  suddenness  and  unusual  circumstances 
surrounding  Doctor  Nearing's  dismissal,  are  all  matters  which  the  trustees 
refuse  to  discuss.  The  trustees  seen  yesterday  who  voted  in  favor  of  ousting 
Doctor  Nearing  took  the  position  that  as  trustees  they  are  a  law  unto  them- 
selves and  owe  the  public  no  explanation  of  their  actions. 

Provost  Edgar  F.  Smith,  who  curtly  informed  Doctor  Nearing  about  his 
dismissal  without  even  notifying  Dean  McCrea,  was  authorized  by  the  trus- 
tees to  do  all  their  talking.  But  Provost  Smith  refused  to  talk. 

George  Wharton  Pepper  denied  that  the  child  labor  interests,  headed 
by  Grundy,  had  any  influence  on  the  trustees. 

"I  was  as  much  in  favor  of  child  labor  legislation  and  workmen's  com- 
pensation as  Nearing  was,"  insisted  Mr.  Pepper  when  told  about  the  protests 
forwarded  to  the  governor  concerning  the  University  appropriation  bill. 
"I  advocated  that  legislation  as  consistently  as  he  did,  though  not  as  effi- 
ciently because  I  did  not  have  his  talents." 

"It  is  generally  recognized  that  Doctor  Nearing  not  only  antagonized 
industrial  orthodoxy,  but  orthodoxy  in  other  fields,  social  and  religious," 
was  suggested. 


21 

"Well,  now,  that  depends  upon  what  you  call  orthodoxy,"  replied  Mr. 
Pepper,  who  is  a  national  leader  in  the  ultra  high  church  movement  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  "But,"  he  continued,  "the  trustees  are  agreed 
that  the  less  talk  about  this  matter  the  better  it  will  be  for  the  University." 

"  Doctor  Nearing  was  not  dismissed,  the  trustees  simply  did  not  renew 
his  appointment;  there  is  no  charge  of  inefficiency  against  Doctor  Nearing," 
Mr.  Pepper  replied,  after  Dean  McCrea's  statement  was  read  to  him. 

"  But  in  the  absence  of  an  explanation  from  the  trustees,  the  public  will 
draw  its  own  conclusions,  as  was  done  by  those  who  today  addressed  the 
governor  on  the  supposition  that  Doctor  Nearing  was  dismissed  in  return  for 
senate  votes  from  child  labor  interests  in  favor  of  the  $1,000,000  University 
appropriation,"  said  the  reporter. 

"That's  absurd,"  insisted  Mr.  Pepper. 

"If  Doctor  Nearing  was  dismissed  for  cause,  would  it  not  be  easy  for 
the  trustees  to  state  the  cause?" 

"That's  our  best  judgment  in  the  matter,"  Mr.  Pepper  replied.  "If  I 
was  dissatisfied  with  my  secretary  or  anything  he  had  done,  some  people 
might  be  in  favor  of  calling  him  in  here  and  sit  down  and  talk  it  over.  Others 
might  think  it  wiser  to  dismiss  him  without  assigning  any  cause.  It  all 
depends  on  the  circumstances  whether  or  not  it  would  be  wiser  to  state  any 
cause,  but  in  any  case  I  suppose  I  would  be  within  my  rights  in  terminating 
his  employment." 

"But  the  general  public  regards  the  University  trustees  not  in  the 
employer's,  but  in  the  secretary's  position,  and  your  illustration  therefore 
suggests  the  question,  would  you  permit  your  secretary  to  do  as  he  pleases 
and  refuse  to  explain?" 

"  Well,  I  guess  we  trustees  are  in  the  secretary's  position,  but  there  are 
times  when  I  can  well  realize  that  my  secretary  would  not  care  to  explain  his 
action,"  Mr.  Pepper  replied. 

"  But  the  public  which  pays  for  the  support  of  the  University  is  not  so 
fortunately  situated  as  you  are;  the  public  cannot  dismiss  the  University 
trustees,"  was  suggested. 

"  No,  we  are  a  self-perpetuating  body,  but  generally  fill  vacancies  on  the 
indorsement  of  the  alumni,"  Mr.  Pepper  answered. 

J.  Levering  Jones,  noted  corporation  lawyer,  also  refused  to  reveal  his 
reasons  as  a  University  trustee  for  having  voted  to  dismiss  Doctor  Nearing. 

"When  people  are  charged  with  a  duty  to  perform  and  with  a  trust  and 
they  do  what  they  consider  right,  do  they  ever  explain?  Name  me  one 
instance,"  declared  Mr.  Jones,  with  much  vehemence.  "Why  should  they 
explain?  Answer  me  that." 

"The  founders  of  this  nation  were  charged  with  a  duty  and  trust  and 
decided  that  'a  decent  regard  for  the  opinion  of  fellow-men'  obliged  them 
to  explain  their  reasons  for  declaring  themselves  independent  of  England," 
the  reporter  ventured. 

"That  was  politics;  there  is  no  politics  in  this;  none  whatever,"  Mr. 
Jones  declared.  "Our  action  speaks  for  itself.  In  the  other  case  it  was  a 
matter  of  taxation  without  representation.  That  was  the  issue.'' 


22 

"But  what  is  the  issue  here?"  was  asked. 

"We  don't  feel  we  owe  the  public  any  explanation;  what  has  the  public 
to  do  with  it?"  Mr.  Jones  asked. 

"The  University  is  a  public  institution,  is  it  not?" 

"It  is  not;  it  is  a  quasi-public  institution,"  Mr.  Jones  insisted.  "And 
private  men  gave  $18,000,000  to  the  University  before  the  state  gave  a  dollar, 
don't  forget  that." 

"But  the  state  is  appropriating  money  for  the  University's  support. 
We  think  when  you  go  to  Harrisburg  and  ask  for  $1,000,000  you  recognize 
the  public's  right  to  information  there,"  the  interviewer  ventured. 

"  But  when  we  did  not  get  any  state  money  you  never  heard  a  word  of 
protest  from  the  University,  nobody  was  asked  to  explain,  the  University 
made  no  charges,  you  never  heard  a  word  from  the  University  then,"  Mr. 
Jones  replied.  "Now,  because  somebody  thinks  a  teacher  should  have 
been  reappointed  and  he  was  not,  why  should  we  explain?  The  trustees  are 
charged  with  the  care  of  the  young,  the  care  of  the  young,  mind  you,  and 
we  have  a  duty  to  perform,  and  we  treat  everybody  fairly,  and  we  will  treat 
Scott  Nearing  fairly  to  the  end." 

"But  aside  from  the  appropriations  of  public  funds  you  enjoy,  are  the 
people  who  send  then-  boys  to  college  not  entitled  to  know  what  the  character, 
ideals  and  principles  of  the  college  is;  if  the  university  is  to  be  an  illiberal, 
intolerant  institution,  are  the  parents  of  students  not  entitled  to  know  it?" 
was  asked. 

"Our  action  speaks  for  itself;  we  have  a  duty  to  perform,"  Mr.  Jones 
insisted.  "We  don't  feel  it  calls  for  explanations." 

(From  the  Evening  Bulletin,  6/19/15.) 

"If  you  think  that  the  trustees  of  the  University  dismissed  Dr.  Nearing 
without  just  cause,"  Mr.  Pepper  said,  "and  that  they  are  not  sincere  in  their 
efforts  to  serve  the  best  interests  of  the  University,  I  want  to  tell  you  right 
now  that  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  let  some  one  else  take  my  place  as  a 
trustee." 


4.    THE  ONE-YEAR  APPOINTMENT— A  LEGAL  SUBTERFUGE.* 

A  member  of  the  board  of  trustees  is  reported  to  have  said, 
"  We  (i.  e.  the  trustees)  are  answerable  to  our  own  sense  of  duty 
and  responsibility.  No  one  has  the  right  to  question  us."  The 
reputation  of  a  great  institution  of  learning  and  teaching  is  then 
to  be  confided  to  each  trustee's  own  conscience  and  judgment, 
and  a  trustee's  formula  for  University  government  is  the  autocrat's 
formula,  "Myself  alone  and  in  the  darkest  secrecy," — the  prin- 
ciple of  that  "invisible  government"  which  even  Mr.  Elihu 
Root  has  come  to  regard  as  a  menace  to  republican  institutions. 
There  is  one  question,  however,  which  the  board  of  trustees 
may  be  made  to  answer,  for  this  question  can  be  asked  in  a  court 
of  law,  ultimately  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 

By  what  right  do  the  trustees  of  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania make  appointments  which  are  virtually  terminable  at 
their  pleasure?  It  would  appear  to  reside  in  two  paragraphs  of 
Section  27  of  the  rules  and  statutes  of  the  board  of  trustees, 
which  I  quote  verbatim: 

"Section  27  (a).  The  officers  of  instruction  under  the  sev- 
eral faculties  shall  be  professors,  assistant  professors,  instructors, 
assistants  and  lecturers. 

"(6).  Appointments  other  than  those  of  professors  and 
assistant  professors  shall  be  for  one  year.  The  appointment  of 
assistant  professors  shall  be  for  a  term  of  from  one  to  three  years. 
At  the  expiration  of  the  period  specified  in  the  terms  of  the 
appointment,  such  appointment  shall  be  regarded  as  terminated, 
without  further  notice,  unless  it  shall  have  been  renewed.  The 
appointment  of  professors  shall  be  for  an  indefinite  term,  unless 
otherwise  specified." 

The  power  of  the  board  of  trustees  to  adopt  rules  and 
statutes  is  derived  from  the  act  of  September  30,  1791,  com- 
monly known  as  the  charter  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 
Section  3  of  this  act  provides: 

"That  the  said  trustees,  and  their  successors,  shall  be  able 


*  The  Public  Ledger  and  the  North  American,  6/24/15. 

(23) 


24 

and  capable  in  law  ...  to  make  rules  and  statutes  not  repug- 
nant to  the  laws  and  constitution  of  this  state,  or  of  the  United 
States  of  America.  .  .  ." 

I  claim  that  Section  27,  paragraph  (6)  of  the  rules  and 
statutes  of  the  board  of  trustees,  quoted  above,  is  repugnant  to 
the  agreement  between  the  trustees  of  the  University  of  the  state 
of  Pennsylvania  and  the  trustees  of  the  college,  academy  and 
charitable  school  of  Philadelphia,  which  constitutes  clauses  seven 
and  eight  of  the  preamble  to  the  act  of  September  30,  1791,  i.  e. 
the  charter  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  from  which  the 
present  board  of  trustees  derive  their  authority: 

"Seventh — That  the  professors  and  officers  composing  the 
faculty  shall  be  elected  by  a  majority  of  the  members  present  at 
any  meeting  of  the  new  board,  the  number  present  to  be  at  least 
thirteen;  that  due  and  timely  notice  of  such  election  shall  at  all 
times  be  given,  and  that  no  person  or  persons  shall  at  any  time 
be  elected  such  professor  or  officer  at  the  same  meeting  in  which 
he  shall  be  nominated. 

"Eighth — That  no  professor  or  officer  of  the  faculty  shall 
be  removed  by  a  less  number  than  two-thirds  of  the  members 
present  at  any  meeting  of  the  new  board,  the  members  present 
to  be  at  least  thirteen;  and  that  due  and  timely  notice  of  such 
intended  removal  shall  at  all  tunes  be  given  and  that  no  person 
or  persons  shall  at  any  time  be  removed  at  the  same  meeting  in 
which  such  removal  shall  be  proposed." 

After  careful  consideration  of  these  two  clauses,  I  claim 
that  the  charter  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  contemplated 
no  other  kind  of  appointment  than  appointment  for  an  indefinite 
term,  and  provided  only  one  method  of  dismissal  from  office,  to 
wit,  "that  due  and  timely  notice  of  such  intended  removal  shall  at 
all  times  be  given  and  that  no  person  or  persons  shall  at  any  time 
be  removed  at  the  same  meeting  in  which  such  removal  shall  be 
proposed." 

The  invention  of  a  one-year  contract  with  persons  entitled 
assistant  professors  and  included  among  the  officers  of  instruc- 
tion, such  contracts,  however,  to  be  terminable  without  notice  on 
failure  of  renewal,  is  apparently  a  subterfuge,  a  subvention  of  the 
clear  intent  of  the  charter,  and  an  invasion  of  the  charter  rights 
of  officers  of  instruction  as  a  class. 


25 

Nobody  seems  to  know  when  these  rules  and  statutes  of 
the  board  of  trustees  were  adopted  or  to  meet  what  contingencies. 
They  have  been  quietly  brought  forth  during  the  last  twenty- 
five  years  and  have  the  evident  purpose  of  reducing  the  security 
of  tenure  of  an  officer  of  instruction,  hi  order  that  he  may  be 
made  subservient  to  the  will  of  the  board  of  trustees. 

The  effect  of  Section  27  of  the  rules  and  statutes  of  the 
board  of  trustees  is  to  reduce  the  tenure  of  an  officer  of  instruction 
to  the  legal  status  of  a  day  laborer.  Now  that  the  question  has 
once  been  raised  hi  connection  with  Professor  Nearing,  it  is  the 
manifest  duty  of  all  officers  of  instruction  at  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  to  unite  hi  order  to  maintain  what  appears  to  be 
their  legal  right  under  the  charter. 

The  case  of  Professor  Nearing  may  have  to  be  carried  to 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  hi  order  that  the 
meaning  and  intent  of  the  act  of  1791  be  judicially  interpreted. 
Meanwhile  let  all  officers  of  instruction  at  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  and  other  guardians  of  the  intellectual  liberties  of 
the  community,  unite  to  have  determined  by  due  process  of  law 
whether  the  charter  really  sanctions  an  act  which  makes  the 
relation  of  a  University  professor  to  the  trustees  the  same  as  that 
of  a  day  laborer  to  his  employers. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Legal  Issue  Defined. 

5.  A  LEGAL  OPINION. 

(From  the  Philadelphia  Record,  6/26/15.) 

John  C.  Bell,  ex-Attorney  General  of  the  State  and  a  trustee  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  yesterday  issued  a  statement  to  refute  the  attack 
made  by  Dr.  Lightner  Witmer,  of  the  faculty,  upon  the  regularity  of  the 
ousting  of  Dr  Scott  Nearing.  Mr.  Bell  declared  that  the  dropping  of  the 
assistant  professor  from  his  chair  in  the  Wharton  School  conformed  with  the 
charter  act  of  the  institution  and  did  not  violate  the  State  Constitution. 
Dr.  Witmer,  who  is  a  professor  of  psychology  in  the  college  department  of  the 
University,  has  addressed  an  open  letter  to  the  University's  officers  of  instruc- 
tion, calling  upon  them  to  test  the  legality  of  decree  by  which  Dr.  Nearing 
was  deposed. 

"I  disagree  with  the  view  of  Professor  Witmer,"  said  Mr.  Bell.  "He 
fails  to  distinguish  between  a  contract  of  employment  which  has  come  to  an 
end  and  a  'removal'  of  an  officer  of  the  faculty  during  his  term  of  employ- 
ment. In  the  former  case  the  contract  has  terminated.  It  is  ended,  and 
either  party  may  renew  it  or  not  as  may  be  thought  best.  In  the  latter  case, 
the  charter  act  contemplates  and  provides  for  a  'removal'  during  the  term 
of  employment,  and  that  such  'removal'  shall  only  be  for  cause  and  after  due 
and  timely  notice. 

"The  section  of  the  'statutes'  or  by-laws  of  the  University  quoted  by  Dr. 
Witmer  is  entirely  consistent  with  the  charter  act,  and  this  by-law  expressly 
provides  that  'the  appointment  of  assistant  professors  shall  be  for  a  term 
of  from  one  to  three  years.  At  the  expiration  of  the  period  specified  in  the 
terms  of  the  appointment,  such  appointment  shall  be  regarded  as  terminated 
without  further  notice  unless  it  shall  have  been  renewed." 

"Dr.  Nearing's  contract  of  employment  was  in  accordance  with  this 
by-law,  of  which  he  was  given  express  notice,  and  was  for  a  year — the 
academic  year  which  has  just  ended.  With  respect  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  State  to  which  Dr.  Witmer  refers,  I  do  not  know  what  provision  he  has 
in  mind;  but  you  will  recall  the  provision — applicable  in  spirit  at  least  to 
the  present  situation — that  appointed  officers  other  than  Judges  may 
be  removed  at  the  pleasure  of  the  power  by  which  they  shall  have  been 
appointed." 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/27/15.) 

John  C.  Bell,  ex-Attorney  General  of  Pennsylvania  and  a  trustee  of  the 
University,  replied  again  yesterday  to  Lightner  Witmer.  The  latter 
expressed  doubt  as  to  the  legality  of  the  trustees'  action  in  dropping  Doctor 

(26) 


27 

Nearing,  and  said  the  case  could  be  carried  into  court  if  there  was  any  doubt 
on  the  matter.  Mr.  Bell  ridiculed  Doctor  Witmer's  reply  and  said  that  he 
did  not  wish  to  enter  into  a  controversy  with  him.  Mr.  Bell  said: 

"Words!  words!  words!  There  is  no  person  quite  so  voluble  as  a  talka- 
tive teacher  in  the  long  vacation  period.  I  have  no  desire  to  continue  the 
game  of  logomachy  with  Doctor  Witmer.  Just  say  I  agree  he  shall  win  by 
default.  Really,  I  gave  the  brief  answer  to  his  lengthy  article  because  of  the 
insistent  request  of  a  polite  young  reporter,  who,  I  realized,  was  trying  to  earn 
his  daily  bread.  I  had  no  thought  of  convincing  Professor  Witmer.  Of 
this  I  was  sure  when  I  read  his  first  long  letter. 

"His  reply  this  morning  seals  this  conviction  to  a  certainty.  If  he  has 
any  real  faith  in  his  contention  that  the  charter  act  of  1791,  which  expressly 
provides  for  the  election  and  'removal'  of  officers  of  instruction  by  the  trus- 
tees, prevents  the  trustees  from  making  a  specific  contract  for  a  definite 
term  of  one  year  with  an  assistant  professor,  and  which  contract  thus  cornea 
to  an  end  at  the  expiration  of  the  year;  or  that  such  assistant  professor, 
having  accepted  such  contract  of  employment  with  express  notice  of  its 
duration,  has,  when  such  term  has  ended,  any  right  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  this  Commonwealth  to,  nevertheless,  insist  that  the  term  or 
tenure  of  his  employment  is  for  life,  or  as  long  as  he  chooses,  then  let  Doctor 
Witmer  test  the  question  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania;  or,  failing 
there,  have  the  charter  act  or  the  Constitution  amended  as  he  suggests. 

"Any  or  all  of  these  courses  are  open  to  him.     Finis." 

(From  the  Evening  Bulletin,  6/22/15.) 

One  of  the  most  prominent  members  of  the  board  of  trustees  said  this 
morning  that  the  present  tempest  was  no  surprise  to  him  or  his  colleagues 
and  that  it  didn't  and  wouldn't  influence  their  stand  in  the  slightest. 

"We  were  made  to  understand  some  time  ago  that  if  the  board  acted 
upon  its  convictions  and  failed  to  reappoint  Professor  Nearing  some  such 
demonstration  of  the  newspapers  and  among  the  alumni  would  result,"  he 
said.  "This  is  natural  under  the  circumstances.  The  present  uproar  does 
not  surprise  us  in  the  least.  This  is  merely  one  of  the  cases  in  which  estimates 
differ.  The  trustees  of  the  University  have  the  responsibility  of  deciding 
what  in  the  long  run  and  on  the  whole  is  likely  to  be  to  the  greatest  interests 
of  the  institution.  They  could  do  nothing  conscientiously  but  act  upon  their 
best  judgment.  This  is  what  they  did. 

"In  rektion  to  Professor  Lindsay's  imputation  that  the  child  labor  advo- 
cates brought  weight  to  bear  upon  the  trustees  because  of  Professor  Nearing's 
attitude  in  the  matter  of  child  labor  I  may  only  say  that  the  statement  isn't 
true.  I  myself  was  one  of  the  most  consistent  supporters  of  the  child  labor 
movement.  I  contributed  to  the  fund  that  supported  that  movement.  I  can 
say  of  my  own  knowledge  that  no  such  influences  as  Professor  Lindsay  refers 
to  were  ever  manifested  at  any  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the 
University. 

"The  trustees,  in  refusing  to  reappoint  Professor  Nearing,  acted  after 


28 

long  deliberation  and  in  the  best  interests  of  the  University.  They  expected 
a  tempest,  which  probably  will  prove  to  be  a  tempest  in  a  teapot.  They 
have  no  fear.  They  will  not  make  any  further  statement  or  explanation  of 
their  attitude.  They  will  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  call  any  special  meeting. 
The  matter,  so  far  as  the  trustees  are  concerned,  ia  a  closed  incident  until 
the  next  regular  meeting  in  October.'' 


6.   AN  ANSWER  TO  MR.  BELL.* 

Ex-Attorney-General  John  C.  Bell  apparently  has  failed  to 
see  the  purport  of  my  claim  that  the  so-called  statute  or  by-law 
of  the  University  which  establishes  one-year  appointments  for 
officers  of  instruction  is  illegal.  I  intended  to  distinguish  quite  as 
clearly  as  Mr.  Bell  does  between  a  contract  of  employment  which 
has  come  to  an  end  and  the  removal  of  an  officer  of  the  faculty 
during  his  term  of  employment. 

The  one-year  contract,  I  maintained,  was  an  illegal  evasion 
of  the  provisions  of  the  charter,  while  the  removal  of  an 
officer  of  the  faculty  is  contemplated  and  provided  for  by  the 
charter. 

Mr.  Bell  merely  meets  this  assertion  of  mine  with  a  counter- 
assertion.  I  do  not  contend  that  I  am  right  and  he  is  wrong. 
'My  contention  is  that  the  only  body  competent  to  determine 
this  issue  is  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania. 
If  it  should  prove  impossible  to  present  the  case  for  the  faculty 
before  a  court  of  law,  by  virtue  of  some  legal  technicality,  per- 
haps the  faculties  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  may  join 
in  a  petition  to  the  next  State  legislature  to  revive  the  old  Uni- 
versity of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  on  the  ground  that  the 
terms  of  the  agreement  between  the  University  of  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  and  the  College  and  Academy  of  Philadelphia 
which  terms  are  incorporated  in  the  act  of  1791,  have  been 
violated  by  the  trustees'  enactment  of  the  by-law  in  question. 

If  the  present  equipment  and  endowment  of  the  University 
are  indeed  the  property  of  the  trustees,  to  be  administered  in 
secrecy  as  they  see  fit,  let  them  take  their  private  property  and 
with  their  own  money  run  a  dwindling,  sectarian  concern,  but  let 
others  take  the  state  appropriation  and  such  gifts  as  may  have 
come  from  the  city  and  conduct  an  institution  of  real  learning  and 
intellectual  freedom. 

I  must  thank  Mr.  Bell  for  so  ingenuously  revealing  his 
attitude  as  a  trustee  toward  a  professor  when  he  tells  us  that 
a  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania, 

*  The  Public  Ledger  and  the  North  American,  6/26/15. 


30 

applicable  to  the  present  situation,  affirms  that  appointive  officers 
other  than  Judges  "may  be  removed  at  the  pleasure  of  the  power 
by  which  they  shall  have  been  appointed." 

Despite  this  provision,  many  state  and  city  employees  are 
now  protected  from  the  spoilsman's  hand  by  specific  civil  service 
laws.  If  no  law,  but  only  the  pleasure  of  the  trustees,  deter- 
mines the  tenure  of  an  officer  of  instruction  at  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania,  it  is  well  that  scholars  at  this  and  other  institutions 
of  learning  should  be  apprised  of  the  fact.  On  the  appearance  of 
the  provost's  letter  to  Professor  Nearing,  one  of  the  most  distin- 
guished members  of  the  college  faculty  wrote  to  the  provost 
that,  while  loyalty  and  affection  for  the  University  had  inspired 
him  in  the  past  to  decline  more  than  one  attractive  call  from 
other  institutions,  he  now  felt  doubtful  about  declining  similar 
offers  in  the  future. 

I  have  just  received  a  communication  from  a  professor  at 
another  university,  an  official  of  the  Association  of  American 
Professors,  which  refers  to  the  trustees'  action  in  the  case  of 
Professor  Nearing  as  "one  of  the  heaviest  blows  that  has  been 
struck  against  academic  freedom  for  some  time,"  and  which 
invites  me  to  present  a  statement  of  the  case  to  the  association 
for  consideration  and  action. 

Do  Mr.  Bell  and  his  fellow-trustees  believe  that  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania  can  either  keep  or  acquire  men  of  aca- 
demic probity  and  scholarship  when  they  learn  that  they  can  be 
removed  from  office  "at  the  pleasure  of  the  power  by  which  they 
shall  have  been  appointed?" 


CHAPTER  IV. 
Religious  and  Educational  Conformity. 

7.    THE  TRUSTEES  DIFFER  IN  OPINION. 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/23/15.) 

For  the  first  time  since  the  dropping  of  Dr.  Scott  Nearing,  a  member  of 
the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  broke  silence  yester- 
day and  gave  his  reasons  for  voting  against  the  retention  of  the  professor. 
This  member  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  was  John  C.  Bell,  ex- Attorney  General 
of  Pennsylvania. 

In  his  statement  explaining  his  vote  against  Doctor  Nearing  Mr.  Bell 
says: 

"I  do  not  question  for  a  moment  Doctor  Nearing's  right  to  entertain  and 
publicly  express  his  views  upon  social,  political  and  economic  questions,  though 
all  will  concede  that  even  the  rights  of  freedom  of  speech  and  of  free  academic 
discussion  may  be  abused  and  should  be  exercised  with  a  decent  regard  to  the 
opinions  of  others. 

"I  voted  against  the  re-employment  of  Doctor  Nearing.  I  did  so  in  the 
discharge  of  my  duty  as  trustee,  because  I  believed  that  the  good  of  the 
service  and  of  the  University  required  me  so  to  do  and  because  of  professional 
utterances  in  the  University,  unbecoming  a  teacher  and  against  the  best 
interests  of  the  institution  and  its  student  body.  I  shall  not  enter  into  detail 
further  than  to  say,  as  an  indicative  instance,  that  an  instructor  who  intem- 
perately  declares,  as  reported  to  us  by  his  dean,  that  'if  I  had  a  son,  I  would 
rather  see  him  in  hell  than  have  him  go  to  the  Episcopal  Academy' — one 
of  the  long-established  and  best  preparatory  schools  in  the  city  and  a  fitting 
school  of  the  University — invites  dismissal. 

"Doctor  Nearing's  contract  of  employment  by  the  University  was  a 
yearly  one.  It  terminated  at  the  end  of  the  present  academic  year.  He  was 
then  at  liberty  to  renew  the  contract  or  go  elsewhere,  as  he  chose.  The 
University  had  a  corresponding  right.  Accordingly,  the  trustees,  in  their 
best  judgment  and  a  conscientious  discharge  of  their  duty,  decided  not  to 
re-employ  him.  As  between  the  parties,  therefore,  Doctor  Nearing's  con- 
tract of  employment  has  simply  come  to  an  end,  and  a  dignified  silence  upon 
the  subject  would  ordinarily  be  the  proper  attitude  of  the  trustees;  hence, 
when  questioned  heretofore,  I  have  begged  to  be  excused  from  discussing  the 
matter  or  referred  the  questioner  to  the  provost  and  Doctor  Nearing. 

"Recognizing,  however,  that  this  silence  is  being  misunderstood  by  the 
alumni  and  the  public,  as  evidenced  by  the  discussion  in  the  newspapers  and 
letters  received,  I  have  thought  it  proper  to  make  this  statement  regard- 
ing the,  discharge  of  my  duty  as  trustee." 

(31) 


32 

(From  the  North  American,  6/23/15.) 

Harrison  S.  Morris,  an  executor  of  the  estate  of  Joseph  Wharton,  the 
founder  of  the  Wharton  School  and  a  champion  of  Doctor  Nearing,  issued 
a  statement  last  night  in  reply  to  Mr.  Bell,  and  particularly  to  the  reference 
made  to  the  Episcopal  Academy.  Mr.  Morris  said: 

"I  have  been  informed  by  Wharton  Barker,  one  of  the  University  trus- 
tees, that  at  the  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees  which  dismissed  Doctor 
Nearing,  they  sent  for  Dean  McCrea  and  extorted  from  him  the  admission  that 
Doctor  Nearing  had  made  the  statement  about  the  Episcopal  Academy  to 
one  deficient  Episcopal  Academy  student  in  Dean  McCrea's  office. 

"Nobody  was  present  except  the  one  deficient  Episcopal  Academy  stu- 
dent and  Dean  McCrea,  and  Doctor  Nearing's  statement  to  them  was  a 
private,  not  a  public,  statement;  provoked,  as  I  am  informed,  by  the  fact 
that  the  University  received  several  deficient  students  from  the  Episcopal 
Academy." 

(From  the  Philadelphia  Record,  6/24/15.) 

An  attempt  to  inject  a  religious  feature  into  the  scrap  over  the  dropping 
of  Scott  Nearing  as  an  assistant  professor  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
was  disclosed  yesterday  in  a  statement  given  out  by  Wharton  Barker,  a 
University  trustee  and  a  one-time  independent  candidate  for  President. 
In  his  letter  Mr.  Barker  stated  that  if  "the  trustees  took  the  action  desired 
by  George  Wharton  Pepper  and  J.  Levering  Jones,  Jews,  Unitarians  and 
other  dissenters  would  be  driven  from  the  University." 

J.  Levering  Jones,  after  being  acquainted  with  Mr.  Barker's  statement, 
declared  that  Mr.  Barker's  utterances  on  any  topic  were  interesting,  and  that 
the  Board  of  Trustees  was  continuing  to  do  the  best  it  could  for  the  State 
and  University.  Mr.  Pepper,  however,  issued  a  statement  declaring  himself 
completely  mystified  by  the  statement  of  Mr.  Barker. 

"I  believe  that  Mr.  Barker  must  have  written  the  statement  under  a 
serious  misapprehension,"  said  he.  "Never  during  my  service  on  the  board 
has  any  proposition  been  made  which  could  have  been  construed  as  offensive 
to  Jews,  Unitarians  or  any  other  religious  body.  The  only  proposition  with 
a  religious  aspect  with  which  Mr.  Jones  and  I  were  identified  was  a  proposal 
to  invite  a  certain  distinguished  scholar,  George  Adam  Smith,  of  Aberdeen, 
to  deliver  a  course  of  lectures  on  the  Old  Testament  revelations  of  God.  The 
proposal  was  thus  limited  to  the  Old  Testament  for  the  very  reason  that  it 
was  my  desire  to  avoid  the  complication  suggested  by  Mr.  Barker.  The 
proposal  had  no  relation  whatever  to  the  Nearing  case.  As  to  Dr.  Nearing, 
neither  I  nor  any  member  of  the  board  has  made  any  proposal  at  any  time 
respecting  his  utterances  on  economic  subjects  which  could  by  any  possibility 
be  construed  as  foreshadowing  an  attempt  to  restrain  religious  liberty." 

The  statement  issued  by  Mr.  Barker  was  a  copy  of  a  letter  which  he  sent 
yesterday  to  Bolton  Hall,  of  New  York,  in  reply  to  a  request  for  his  position 
on  the  Nearing  case.  Incorporated  in  the  letter  to  Mr.  Hall  was  a  copy  of 
a  letter  which  Mr.  Barker  had  sent  to  Provost  Smith  on  April  5th.  The 
quoted  communication  to  the  Provost  is  as  follows: 


33 

The  letters,  four,  I  think,  you  placed  before  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  appear  to  be  charges  of  economic  heterodoxy 
rather  than  of  ecclesiastical  heterodoxy.  I  attach  to  this  letter  a  slip  that 
covers  an  open  letter  addressed  by  Scott  Nearing,  who  was  attacked  by  the 
writers  of  the  letters  referred  to,  which  breathes  from  end  to  end  the  spirit 
of  Him  who  preached  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  letter  I  want  you 
to  read. 

If  the  action  George  Wharton  Pepper  and  J.  Levering  Jones  would  have 
the  trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  take,  should  be  taken — action 
I  cannot  believe  possible — Jews,  Unitarians  and  other  dissenters  would  be 
driven  from  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  students  and  professors,  asso- 
ciate professors  and  instructors'  would  be  driven. 

Is  it  possible  that  such  men  as  Joseph  Leidy,  Thomas  H.  Huxley,  John 
Tyndall,  William  H.  Furness,  Horace  Howard  Furness,  Henry  C.  Lea  and 
hosts  of  other  men  as  earnest,  but  not  as  well  known,  should  have  a  ban  put 
upon  them  by  the  University  of  Pennsylvania? 

I  hope  the  action  taken  by  the  Board  of  Trustees  about  a  year  since, 
when  the  statement  of  Effingham  B.  Morris  as  to  the  position  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania  trustees  for  free  speech  and  religious  liberty,  may 
stand  without  modification  as  the  declared  position  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania. 

Thomas  H.  Huxley,  upon  his  installation  as  rector  of  Aberdeen  University 
in  1874,  said:  "Universities  should  be  places  in  which  thought  is  free  from 
all  fetters,  and  in  which  all  sources  of  knowledge,  and  all  aids  of  learning, 
should  be  accessible  to  all-comers,  without  distinction  of  creed  or  country, 
riches  or  poverty. 

Can  anyone  who  believes  in  free  speech  and  religious  liberty  take  other 
position  than  that  taken  by  Huxley? 

The  attacks  upon  Nearing  are  made,  not  because  of  his  views  upon 
religion,  hut  because  he  attacks  the  aggressions  of  associated  capital;  attacks 
made  because  associated  capital  knows  that  its  aggression  upon  economic 
rights  of  the  people  is  nefarious  and  cannot  stand  against  adequate  presenta- 
tion of  the  demands  of  the  people  and  of  the  aggressions  of  associated  capital. 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/26 A 5.) 

A  vigorous  demand  on  George  Wharton  Pepper  that  he  lead  a  movement 
to  restore  and  assure  "free  speech"  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  has 
been  made  by  Harrison  S.  Morris,  the  champion  of  Professor  Scott  Nearing. 
The  demand  was  made  in  the  course  of  a  spirited  correspondence  on  the 
subject  of  free  speech  between  Mr.  Morris  and  Mr.  Pepper,  made  public 
yesterday  by  Mr.  Morris.  Mr.  Pepper  is  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Trustees 
of  the  University  who  voted  against  the  retention  of  Professor  Nearing. 

The  correspondence  shows  that  George  Wharton  Pepper  opened  it  by 
writing  to  Mr.  Morris,  stating  that  a  number  of  communications  were  coming 
to  him  regarding  the  Nearing  matter  and  asking,  "Is  there  any  way  in  which 
I  can  be  of  service  to  you?" 


84 

Mr.  Morris  at  once  replied,  urging  that  Mr.  Pepper  immediately  place 
himself  at  the  head  of  a  movement  to  obtain  "free  speech"  and  promising  him 
the  support  of  the  power  and  moral  influence  of  an  overwhelming  public 
sentiment.  Mr.  Pepper  replied  to  this  letter,  and  in  his  next  answer  Mr. 
Morris  intimated  that  the  restoration  of  Scott  Nearing  was  a  necessary  con- 
comitant to  any  such  campaign  for  free  speech. 

The  publication  of  the  correspondence  was  considered  highly  significant 
by  the  friends  of  Doctor  Nearing.  The  letters  of  George  Wharton  Pepper 
were  the  first  instance  of  any  trustee  discussing  the  rights  of  free  speech  with- 
out solicitation. 

Provost  Smith  returned  to  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  after  his  trip 
West,  but  refused  to  discuss  the  case. 

Effingham  B.  Morris,  a  trustee  of  the  University  and  president  of  the 
Girard  Trust  Company,  while  refusing  to  discuss  the  causes  that  led  the 
board  to  drop  Professor  Nearing,  insisted  that  the  statement  issued  a  year 
ago  in  favor  of  free  speech  at  the  University  still  stood  unimpaired  as  the 
expression  of  the  board. 

In  regard  to  the  correspondence  between  George  Wharton  Pepper  and 
Harrison  S.  Morris,  Mr.  Pepper  said  yesterday  that  he  did  not  know  it  was  to 
be  given  out  for  publication.  He  said  the  last  letter  had  been  received  from 
Mr.  Morris  yesterday  afternoon  and  that  he  had  no  comment  to  make  on  it. 

The  first  letter  in  the  correspondence,  which  was  from  Mr.  Pepper,  was 
dated  June  21st  and  read  as  follows: 
"DEAR  MB.  MORRIS: 

"I  am  receiving  communications  in  regard  to  the  Nearing  matter  from 
students  and  other  persons  who  say  they  are  communicating  with  me  at 
your  request.  Will  you  let  me  know  what  your  thought  is  in  pursuing  this 
course,  and  tell  me  whether  there  is  any  way  in  which  I  can  be  of  service 
to  you? 

"Very  truly  yours, 

"G.  W.  PEPPER." 

On  June  24th  Mr.  Morris  replied: 

"Mr  DEAR  MR.  PEPPER: 

"Your  letter  of  June  21st  is  received. 

"You  are  good  enough  to  ask  if  there  is  any  way  in  which  you  can  be 
of  service  to  me,  and  I  am  going  to  reply  in  a  like  spirit  of  helpfulness. 

"You  can  best  be  of  service  to  me  and  to  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
by  placing  yourself  immediately  at  the  head  of  a  movement  to  restore  and  to 
assure  free  speech  at  the  University;  and,  if  you  will  do  this  service  for 
American  ideals,  I  and  my  friends  will  place  back  of  you  the  power  and  moral 
influence  of  an  overwhelming  public  sentiment. 

"I  can  conceive  of  no  nobler  service  for  humanity  than  leadership  in  the 
cause  of  man's  right  to  free  speech,  which,  as  you  have  now  doubtless  realized, 
only  becomes  dangerous  when  it  is  denied  utterance. 

"You  have  a  glorious  opportunity  and  I  hope  you  will  quickly  seize  it 
as  a  duty  of  your  trusteeship." 


35 

Mr.  Pepper's  reply  was  dated  June  24th.     He  wrote: 
"DEAR  MR.  MORRIS — I  thank  you  for  yours  of  June  24th. 

"There  are  a  good  many  reasons  why  I  am  not  fitted  to  place  myself  at 
the  head  of  any  movement.  I  am  glad,  however,  to  make  my  contribution 
to  any  cause  which  seems  to  me  to  be  worthy.  As  to  '  a  movement  to  restore 
and  to  secure  free  speech  at  the  University,'  I  think  that,  before  we  could 
enlist  as  fellow  soldiers  in  such  a  cause,  we  should  have  to  agree  in  our  defini- 
tion of  terms.  If  by  free  speech  is  meant  the  unrestricted  right  of  a  teacher 
to  adopt  any  method  he  pleases  for  the  propagation  of  any  view  he  happens 
to  hold,  then  I  could  not  bring  myself  to  advocate  such  license  either  at  the 
University  or  anywhere  else.  Conceivably  a  man  might  feel  himself  justified 
in  advocating  a  disregard  of  moral  principles  regarded  by  the  rest  of  us  as 
fundamental.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  free  speech  means  the  right  to  proclaim 
views  not  discordant  with  the  ethical  sense  of  the  community  and  so  pro- 
claimed as  to  evidence  due  consideration  for  the  sensibilities  of  those  holding 
different  views,  I  shall  be  happy  to  enlist  in  a  campaign  for  free  speech  at  the 
University  or  anywhere  else  whenever  the  right  appears  to  me  to  be  in 
jeopardy.  / 

"Very  truly  yours, 

"G.  W.  PEPPER." 

To  this  Mr.  Morris  replied  yesterday  (June  25th)  as  follows: 

"DEAR  MR.  PEPPER — Your  letter  of  June  24th  is  at  hand. 

"My  definition  of  free  speech  is  that  it  is  the  utterance  of  a  person  of 
known  high  character  who  speaks  neither  treason  nor  obscenity. 

"In  further  answer  to  your  first  letter  I  should  like  to  say  that  you  can 
be  of  service  to  me  and  to  the  University  by  telling  me  frankly  the  reason  for 
the  notice  given  Dr.  Scott  Nearing.  If  any  utterance  of  his  has  offended 
against  the  definition  given  above  of  free  speech,  or  even  of  the  definition 
you  give,  then  I  could  better  understand  the  action  of  the  members  of  the 
^oard  of  Trustees  who  voted  against  him. 

"If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  selfishness  of  entrenched  monopoly  or  of  reli- 
gious bigotry  have  begotten  his  dismissal,  I  should  expect  you  to  denounce 
those  un-American  motives,  and,  as  you  say,  'enlist  in  a  campaign  for  free 
speech  at  the  University,  or  anywhere  else,  whenever  the  right  appears  to 
be  in  jeopardy.' 

"Such  a  campaign  can  have  one  object  only:  the  righting  of  the  wrong 
that  has  been  done;  the  acknowledgment  that  public  sentiment  requires 
you  to  replace  the  man  who  now  typifies  that  power. 

"Yours  truly, 

"HARRISON  S.  MORRIS." 

(From  the  North  American,  6/24/15.) 

In  connection  with  the  religious  issue  brought  out  by  Wharton  Barker 
as  having  a  bearing  on  the  University  trustees'  position  toward  academic 
freedom,  it  is  pointed  out  that  absolute  religious  tolerance  and  liberty  was 


36 

guaranteed  by  the  first  deed  of  trust  executed  for  the  establishment  of  the 
University. 

This  first  deed  of  trust  conveyed  the  first  University  grounds,  on  Fourth 
Street  north  of  Market,  to  a  board  of  trustees  on  September  15,  1740,  with 
instructions  to  these  trustees  to  appoint  instructors  "without  any  regard  to 
those  distinctions  of  different  sentiments  in  lesser  matters  which  have  to  the 
scandal  of  religion,  unhappily  divided  real  Christians." 

Despite  these  guarantees  of  a  non-denominational  and  religiously  tolerant 
institution,  the  University  fell  under  strong  tory  influences  in  its  early  years, 
and  in  the  amended  charter  of  1791,  Benjamin  Franklin  is  credited  with 
having  made  the  principle  of  religious  toleration  still  more  binding. 

(From  the  Alumni  Register,  February,  1914.) 

A  news  item  in  the  department  "The  University,"  discussing  "Free 
Speech  at  Pennsylvania,"  is  as  follows: 

"Considerable  excitement  has  occurred  at  the  University  and  hi  public 
print  recently  over  published  statements  in  the  newspapers  that  means  were 
being  used  to  direct  Instructors  Nearing  and  King  in  the  Wharton  School. 
George  Wharton  Pepper,  '87,  a  trustee  and  a  popular  alumnus,  is  quoted  in 
the  Evening  Bulletin  as  saying:  'Speaking  offhand  it  looks  to  me  as  though  the 
whole  regrettable  agitation  is  one  between  the  student  body  at  the  Wharton 
School  and  the  instructors  there.  So  far  as  I  know,  the  trustees  of  the  Uni- 
versity have  had  no  part  in  it  and  will  have  no  part  in  it.  The  questions  now 
discussed  so  generally  in  the  newspapers  were  never  submitted  to  the  board, 
and  were  never  brought  up  for  discussion.  The  right  of  any  man  to  speak 
his  mind  has  never  been  questioned  or  even  talked  of  at  any  board  meeting 
that  I  ever  attended,  except  one.  That  was  when  Professor  O'Bolger  was 
under  fire.  Dr.  Nearing  or  Dr.  King  have  never  come  up  for  such  criticism, 
and  their  names  were  never  even  mentioned  at  any  meeting  in  my  memory. 
I  didn't  know  there  was  such  a  man  as  Professor  King  at  the  Wharton  School 
until  I  read  it  in  the  papers.  I  feel  absolutely  safe  in  saying  that  the  antag- 
onism under  which  the  two  men  believe  they  have  suffered  is  a  matter  of  their 
imagination  or  of  their  friends'  imaginations.  If  there  was  a  formulated 
antagonism  or  a  policy  such  as  is  hinted  at,  I  am  sure  I  should  know  about  it. 
It  seems  to  me — and  I  believe  other  trustees  feel  as  I  do — that  an  institution 
like  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  which  is  so  large  a  factor  in  the  public 
life,  should  have  a  publicly  declared  policy  on  certain  of  the  questions  that 
are  now  dividing  the  communities.  Such  a  policy  should  be  formulated  on 
intellectual  standards  and  it  should  be  indicated  by  the  best  of  mature  and 
cultivated  thought.  This  is  as  important  for  the  University,  the  student 
body,  and  the  faculty  as  for  the  public  at  large.  There  must  be  some  intel- 
lectual direction  somewhere.  This  matter  and  its  possible  effect  in  limiting 
certain  sorts  of  sensational  utterances  by  a  few  faculty  members  has  been 
discussed  only  informally  among  the  trustees,  but  it  will  come  up  at  the  next 
meeting.  It  may  be  a  long  time  before  we  can  announce  anything  definite. 
Meanwhile,  I  think  I  might  safely  speak  for  all  the  other  trustees  when  I  say 


37 

I  know  nothing  whatever  about  the  causes  underlying  the  present  excitement. 
I  cannot  make  out  what  Dr.  Nearing  and  Dr.  King  are  driving  at  when  they 
say  their  utterances  have  been  suppressed,  or  that  they  haven't  been  per- 
mitted to  speak  their  minds.  Anyone  familiar  with  Dr.  Nearing's  speeches 
would  naturally  wonder  greatly  what  sort  of  mind  he  has,  or  what  thing  it 
is  that  he  has  left  unsaid.  It  seems  to  me,  as  well  as  the  others,  that  he  has 
enjoyed  freedom  of  an  absolute  sort,  and  anyone  who  reads  the  newspapers 
even  casually  probably  will  think  so  too."  (P.  375.) 

This  is  followed  by  a  reprint  of  a  derogatory  cartoon  from  the  Philadel- 
phia Record,  representing  Wisdom  in  the  guise  of  an  old  man,  holding  off  the 
Fool-killer,  who  resembles  the  ideal  type  of  our  primitive  ancestors,  brutish 
and  unkempt,  clad  in  skins  and  armed  with  a  club,  and  who  is  menacing  a 
tiny  creature  in  cap  and  gown,  labeled  the  Young  Professor,  and  mounted 
on  a  pedestal  labeled  Radical  Utterances  on  Social  and  Economic  Questions. 

The  article  continues  below  the  cartoon  with  an  interview  of  Mr.  Effing- 
ham  B.  Morris,  quoted  from  the  Public  Ledger: 

"In  all  universities  professors  habitually  express  themselves  freely  upon 
questions  which  interest  or  divide  the  community.  It  could  never  seriously 
be  suggested  in  any  college  or  university  in  this  country  to  stifle  or  control 
freedom  of  thought  or  expression  by  professors.  In  a  large  teaching  staff  of 
several  hundred  men,  such  as  exists  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  occa- 
sional unwise  utterances  are,  of  course,  inevitable,  but  they  do  little  harm. 

"It  is  natural  for  some  of  the  younger  teachers  to  take  themselves  and 
their  opinions  upon  current  social  or  economic  questions  more  seriously  than 
is  warranted  by  the  extent  of  their  practical  experience.  It  is  only  the  pas- 
sage of  years  which  leads  discreet  professors,  as  well  as  other  workers  in  the 
world,  to  be  tolerant  of  the  opinions  of  other  students  of  life  as  it  exists. 

"Infallible  wisdom  cannot  be  expected  to  hover  continuously  over  the 
chairs  of  all  professors,  any  more  than  over  all  board  rooms  of  trustees,  or 
over  all  newspaper  or  any  other  offices.  Differences  of  opinion  must  always 
exist.  But  if  sanity  and  good  temper  and  sober-mindedness  are  kept  in  view 
by  all  persons  concerned — trustees,  professors,  students,  and  the  public — 
there  will  seldom  be  any  occasion  for  criticism,  and  none  at  all  for  an  outcry 
on  behalf  of  liberty  of  opinion  and  freedom  of  speech  at  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania." 

The  article  continues: 

"As  Dr.  William  Draper  Lewis,  Dean  of  the  Law  School,  has  been  per- 
haps the  most  widely  distinguished  member  of  the  Faculty  before  the  public, 
an  inquiry  was  addressed  to  him  as  to  whether  or  not  freedom  of  speech  had 
been  accorded  him. 

"  Dear  Mr.  Lippincott :  I  have  received  and  have  had  under  considera- 
tion for  two  days  your  letter  in  regard  to  a  statement  from  me  to  be  published 
in  the  Alumni  Register  in  re  the  question  of  free  speech.  It  appears  to  me 
that  the  Board  by  adopting  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Morris,  has  put  a  quietus , 
on  the  discussion  and  I  do  not  believe  that  it  would  do  the  alumni  any  good 
to  reopen  the  matter  in  the  Alumni  Register  even  though  I  can  state,  as 


38 

every  University  man  knows,  that  I  have  never  been  hampered  in  any  way 
by  the  Board  of  Trustees.  I  have  communicated  with  the  Provost  and  I 
find  that  he  agrees  with  me  on  the  subject. 

"Sincerely  yours, 

"WILLIAM  DRAPEB  LEWIS."* 


*  Read  in  this  connection  the  Alumni  Register's  attack  on  Dean  Lewis,  in  an  editorial 
published  December,  1914,  and  reprinted  on  page  66. 


8.    RELIGIOUS  AND  EDUCATIONAL  AIMS.* 

In  a  recent  communication  to  Mr.  Harrison  Morris,  Mr. 
George  Wharton  Pepper  invites  a  discussion  of  the  definition  and 
limitation  of  free  speech.  "This  is  the  right,"  Mr.  Pepper  says, 
"to  proclaim  views  and  discordant  with  the  ethical  sense  of  the 
community  and  so  proclaimed  as  to  evidence  due  consideration 
for  the  sensibilities  of  those  holding  different  views."  Mr.  Pepper's 
definition  of  free  speech  contains  so  many  terms  of  doubtful 
meaning  that  I  think  he  will  recognize  the  reasonableness  of 
asking  him  to  define  the  limits  he  would  set  to  free  speech,  with 
somewhat  greater  precision  and  with  some  reference  to  particulars. 
How,  for  example,  will  Mr.  Pepper  undertake  to  determine  what 
the  ethical  sense  of  the  community  is?  Is  it  the  ethical  sense  of 
some  one  trustee,  or  the  average  ethical  sense  of  the  entire  board? 
If  the  board  of  trustees  is  too  small  a  body  from  which  to  derive 
the  ethical  sense  of  the  community,  can  this  be  represented  by 
the  ethical  sense,  say,  of  a  majority  of  the  voters  in  Philadelphia, 
as  expressed  in  some  general  election  in  which  one  or  another 
political  organization  may  have  won  a  decisive  victory? 

Another  term  requiring  more  precise  definition  is  "due 
consideration  for  the  sensibilities  of  those  holding  different  views." 
Mr.  Pepper  has  always  shown  in  his  relations  with  other  men  the 
most  delicate  consideration  for  the  thoughts  and  feelings  of 
others,  and  naturally  expects  that  he  has  a  right  to  claim  from 
others  the  same  consideration  for  his  own  thoughts  and  feelings. 
Owing  to  the  great  diversity  of  opinion  on  matters  of  taste, 
many  might  think  this  measure  of  consideration  excessive.  In 
the  rough  and  tumble  battle  of  life,  not  every  man  is  clever  or 
politic  enough  to  make  his  utterances  void  of  all  offense. 

Freedom  of  thought  and  freedom  of  speech  can  only  be 
defined  in  terms  of  the  specific  ideas  involved  in  a  particular 
statement.  No  one  believes  in  license;  but  on  the  other  hand, 
I  think  we  agree,  in  this  country  at  least,  that  in  matters  of 
religion  and  politics  there  can  be  practically  no  limit  assigned  to 
freedom  of  thought  and  expression.  I  understand  Mr.  Pepper  to 

•The  Public  Ledger  and  the  North  American,  6/28/15. 

(39) 


40 

be  in  essential  agreement  with  this  view  when  he  says  in  reply  to 
Mr.  Wharton  Barker,  "Neither  I  nor  any  member  of  the  board  has 
made  any  proposal  at  any  time  respecting  his  (Prof.  Scott  Near- 
ing's)  utterances  on  economic  subjects  which  could  by  any  possi- 
bility be  construed  as  foreshadowing  an  attempt  to  restrain 
religious  liberty."  But  I  must  confess  that  again  I  find  Mr. 
Pepper's  meaning  doubtful.  Mr.  Wharton  Barker  had  asserted: 
"If  the  action  Mr.  George  Wharton  Pepper  and  Mr.  J.  Levering 
Jones  would  have  the  University  take  should  be  taken — action 
I  cannot  believe  possible — Jews,  Unitarians  and  other  dissenters 
would  be  driven  from  the  University  of  Pennsylvania."  While 
Mr.  Barker's  statement  apparently  refers  to  other  and  wider 
issues  than  the  mere  removal  of  Professor  Nearing,  Mr.  Pepper 
limits  his  contradiction  of  Mr.  Barker  to  the  board's  action  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Nearing,  and  then  only  in  so  far  as  it  concerns 
"his  utterances  on  economic  subjects."  I  think  we  may,  there- 
fore, ask  Mr.  Pepper  whether  he  or  any  other  member  of  the 
board  has  ever  made  any  proposal  respecting  Professor  Nearing's 
or  any  other  instructor's  utterances  on  any  subject  "which  could 
by  any  possibility  be  construed  as  foreshadowing  an  attempt  to 
restrain  religious  liberty." 

The  expression,  "an  attempt  to  restrain  religious  liberty," 
I  find  also  in  need  of  more  precise  definition.  As  commonly 
understood,  this  would  mean  an  effort  to  keep  a  Jew,  a  Unitarian 
or  an  agnostic  out  of  the  faculty.  I  do  not  so  interpret  Mr. 
Barker's  strictures;  as  I  understand  him,  "an  attempt  to  restrain 
religious  liberty"  would  be  represented  by  any  effort  to  restrain 
the  freedom  of  thought  and  its  expression,  which  should  be  made 
hi  the  name  of  religion.  In  view  of  Mr.  Pepper's  known  religious 
convictions  and  his  constant  endeavor  to  act  in  accordance  with 
what  he  holds  to  be  true  and  right,  which  has  gained  for  him  the 
cordial  and  well-deserved  respect  of  the  community,  I  feel  that 
he  will  himself  recognize  that  it  is  but  just  to  the  faculty  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  that  he  should  frankly  state  the 
extent  to  which  he  would  permit  his  religious  convictions  to 
determine  his  actions  as  a  member  of  the  board  of  trustees  in 
voting  for  or  against  a  particular  candidate  for  an  office  of 
instruction. 

Is  it  not  fair  to  ask  Mr.  Pepper,  now  that  he  has  himself 


proposed  a  definition  of  free  speech,  to  tell  us  whether  he  agrees 
with  Huxley's  definition  and  if  not,  to  what  particulars  of  the 
definition  he  takes  exception?  Mr.  Barker  quoted  from  Huxley's 
installation  address  as  rector  of  Aberdeen:  "Universities  should 
be  places  in  which  thought  is  free  from  all  fetters,  and  in  which  all 
sources  of  knowledge  and  all  aids  of  learning  should  be  accessible 
to  all  comers,  without  distinction  of  creed  or  country,  riches  or 
poverty." 

The  necessity  for  asking  Mr.  Pepper  to  declare  the  extent  to 
which  his  religious  convictions  would  determine  his  interpreta- 
tion of  the  ethical  sense  of  the  community  is  due  to  my  belief 
that  Mr.  Barker  is  right,  and  that  there  are  influences  at  work 
within  the  governing  body  of  the  University  and  among  its  friends, 
which  "foreshadow  an  attempt  to  restrain"  intellectual  freedom 
and  expression  in  the  name  of  religion.  In  support  of  my  belief, 
I  shall,  for  the  present,  confine  myself  to  two  particulars. 

Recently  the  board  of  trustees  approved,  on  recommendation 
of  the  college  faculty,  a  new  curriculum  for  the  college  depart- 
ment at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  It  is  but  just  to  the 
University,  and  especially  to  its  board  of  trustees,  at  this  moment 
when  they  are  subjected  to  such  adverse  criticism  because  of  the 
secrecy  and  abruptness  of  their  action  in  the  case  of  Professor 
Nearing,  that  critics  of  the  University  should  know  that  this  new 
curriculum  is  probably  the  most  liberal  and  efficient  curriculum 
existing  today  at  any  college  in  the  country. 

Moreover,  in  securing  the  passage  of  this  curriculum  through 
the  faculty  and  through  the  board  of  trustees,  Professor  Cheyney, 
as  chairman  of  the  faculty  committee  on  curriculum,  and  Pro- 
fessor Smith,  as  provost,  employed  a  mode  of  procedure  which 
might  be  taken  by  every  institution  of  learning  as  a  model  of 
democratic  government  in  university  affairs.  Provost  Smith, 
even  though  he  was  opposed  to  the  curriculum,  nevertheless 
recommended  its  adoption  by  the  board  of  trustees  because  the 
college  faculty  had  approved  it.  He  also  provided  for  a  series 
of  conferences  between  members  of  the  board  of  trustees  and 
members  of  the  faculty,  which  had  a  great  effect  in  reducing  the 
opposition  of  certain  members  of  the  board  to  the  curriculum. 
My  gratification  over  the  adoption  of  this  curriculum  was  equalled 
only  by  my  enthusiasm  for  the  democratic  procedure  employed, 


42 

and  I  had  hoped,  until  the  recent  action  of  the  board  of  trustees, 
that  this  represented  a  fixed  mode  of  procedure  and  promised,  in 
all  important  matters  affecting  the  welfare  of  the  University,  the 
co-operative  deliberation  of  trustees  and  faculty. 

Owing  to  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  definite  information  as 
to  any  action  of  the  board  of  trustees,  I  ask  Mr.  Pepper  to  correct 
me  if  the  statement  is  wrong,  that,  in  the  final  vote  of  the  board, 
he  cast  the  only  vote  recorded  against  this  new  curriculum. 
I  have  reasons  for  believing  that  Mr.  Pepper  thinks  that  the 
college  curriculum  should  be  reduced  to  a  minimum  number  of 
subjects,  and  that  the  content  and  methods  of  instruction  should 
aim  at  molding  the  mind  and  character  of  students  in  conformity 
to  his  religious  and  ethical  ideals.  Not  only  are  religious  con- 
victions variable,  and  their  effect  upon  thought  and  action  diffi- 
cult to  ascertain,  but  educational  ideals  also  undergo  great  pro- 
gressive changes.  The  dominant  religious  convictions  of  two  hun- 
dred years  ago  giving  ethical  tone  to  the  community  are  not  the 
dominant  religious  convictions  of  today,  nor  is  educational  theory 
and  practice  the  same  as  it  was  even  fifty  years  ago.  Liberty 
and  conformity  are  contrasting  ideals  in  education,  as  well  as  in 
religion  and  government.  In  education,  the  ideal  of  liberty  is 
realized  when  the  subjects  of  instruction  are  presented  so  that  the 
student  is  made  to  think  for  himself.  The  ideal  of  conformity 
achieved  its  highest  realization  in  the  marvelous  educational 
technique  of  the  Jesuits.  This  ideal,  taking  to  heart  the  ancient 
proverb,  "As  the  twig  is  bent,  the  tree's  inclined,"  insists  that  we 
have  an  intellectual  and  ethical  pattern  so  fixed  and  definite  that 
every  youth  can  be  molded  in  conformity  to  it.  All  phases  of 
life  are  based  upon  compromise,  and  no  one  can  safely  advocate 
the  complete  exclusion  of  either  ideal.  The  unsafe  person  in 
educational  work  is  the  man  who  uncompromisingly  insists  upon 
carrying  forward  an  educational  system  in  accordance  with  one 
ideal  to  the  total  exclusion  of  the  other. 

Professor  Nearing  represents  perhaps  one  extreme  of  educa- 
tional theory  and  practice.  All  his  students,  I  believe,  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  he  is  a  good  teacher,  because  he  makes 
his  students  think.  Mr.  Pepper  is  supposed  to  represent  the 
opposite  extreme,  and  might,  if  he  had  the  power,  put  his  ideal 
into  practice.  This  outcome  is  foreshadowed  in  a  report  of  the. 


43 

same  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society,  whose 
sub-committee  on  the  Wharton  School  initiated  the  movement 
which  culminated  in  Professor  Nearing's  removal.  Its  sub- 
committee on  the  college  puts  forth,  in  a  tenative  way,  as  though 
to  try  out  opinion,  the  suggestion  that  retrenchment  in  some 
directions  is  necessary  in  the  matter  of  college  electives,  and  pro- 
poses the  strengthening  of  what  it  calls  "the  more  general 
courses."  If  retrenchment  is  based  upon  financial  reasons  only, 
it  will  not  be  the  safe  subjects  like  Latin  and  Greek  which  will 
be  retained,  but  rather  what  Mr.  Pepper  and  his  associates  prob- 
ably consider  the  dangerous  modern  sciences,  for  these  have  by 
far  the  larger  attendance. 

The  antagonism  of  certain  religious  convictions  to  modern 
scientific  methods  and  to  efficient  social  organization  is  too  well 
known  to  need  confirmation.  To  make  clear,  however,  the  kind 
of  religion  which  I  have  in  mind,  I  must  refer  to  a  specific  instance. 
The  social  service  department  of  the  University  Hospital  is  organ- 
ized to  give  individual  care  to  persons  applying  to  the  dispensaries 
or  received  into  the  wards  for  treatment. 

The  function  of  this  department  is  to  see  that  patients  are 
properly  directed  in  securing  the  best  possible  medical  and  other 
treatment  which  the  University  Hospital  affords,  to  inquire  care- 
fully into  the  patients'  home  conditions,  to  offer  relief  when 
needed,  to  impart  elementary  instruction  in  hygiene  and  to  see 
that  the  treatment  prescribed  by  the  doctors  is  actually  carried 
out  by  the  patient.  The  only  ward  which  excludes  the  social 
service  department,  with  its  tender  of  modern  scientific  care,  is 
the  maternity  ward,  where  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  services  of  the 
department  are  probably  most  needed.  As  a  substitute  for  the 
social  service  department,  the  committee  intrusted  with  securing 
funds  for  the  ward  and  having  the  welfare  of  the  patients  in 
charge,  employs  a  missionary  visitor  to  give  spiritual  ministra- 
tion, whose  attitude  appears  to  be  that,  so  long  as  the  babies  are 
baptized,  it  doesn't  matter  whether  they  die  or  not.  The  social 
service  department  has  been  subjected  to  the  injustice  of  adverse 
criticism  on  the  alleged  ground  that  mothers  with  their  babies, 
especially  unmarried  mothers,  are  permitted  to  leave  the  hospital 
in  need  of  care  and  treatment.  Any  one  who  will  scan  the  mem- 
bership of  the  committee  on  the  maternity  ward  will  discover,  I 


44 

think,  the  same  religious  influence  which  Mr.  Wharton  Barker  prob- 
ably had  in  mind  when  he  referred  to  the  action  of  the  board  of 
trustees  as  likely  to  drive  dissenters  from  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania. I  hope  that  nothing  I  may  say  will  be  wrongly  con- 
strued as  an  attack  on  religion,  or  as  an  attempt  to  set  modern 
science  in  opposition  to  religion.  I  merely  wish  to  put  the  friends 
of  intellectual  freedom  and  new  knowledge  on  guard  against  the 
kind  of  religion  which  joins  with  wealth  to  grasp  at  power  in  the 
name  of  charity. 

And  now  I  come  to  Billy  Sunday.  Many  have  criticised  the 
provost  and  the  board  of  trustees  for  inviting  Billy  Sunday  to 
address  the  students  of  the  University.  I  do  not  join  in  this 
criticism,  for  I  believe  the  students  should  be  permitted  to  hear 
every  variety  of  thought  and  to  compare  one  method  of  presenta- 
tion with  another.  In  fact,  I  appreciated  the  privilege  of  hearing 
Billy  Sunday  very  conveniently  in  the  University's  gymnasium. 
What  I  cannot  understand  is  just  what  Mr.  Bell  finds  objection- 
able in  Professor  Nearing's  statement  that  he  "would  rather  see 
a  son  of  his  in  hell  than  in  the  Episcopal  Academy."  Does  he 
object  to  the  intemperate  word  "hell,"  or  does  he  object  to  the 
criticism  of  the  Episcopal  Academy?  If  the  latter,  I  can  assure 
him  that  I  have  found,  what  runs  counter  to  my  convictions  as 
an  alumnus  of  the  Episcopal  Academy,  that  some  persons  seem 
to  agree  with  Professor  Nearing.  I  cannot  ask  Mr.  Bell  to  explain 
the  precise  nature  of  Professor  Nearing's  offense,  for  he  has 
recently  written  "finis"  to  our  friendly  interchange  of  opinion, 
but  Mr.  Pepper  may  be  willing  to  tell  us  to  what  extent  it  would 
weigh  with  him  in  determining  the  fitness  of  a  candidate  for  a 
professorship,  if,  like  Doctor  Nearing,  the  candidate  had  addressed 
an  open  invitation  to  Billy  Sunday  to  attack  the  dishonesty  of 
particular  interests,  and  not  merely  dishonesty  in  the  abstract. 
In  order  that  we  may  understand  just  what  standard  of  "ethical 
sense"  the  board  of  trustees  may  have  established,  and  what 
they  regard  as  "due  consideration"  for  the  opinions  of  others, 
I  invite  Mr.  Pepper  to  explain  why  the  trustees  object  to  Pro- 
fessor Nearing's  inconsiderate  language,  and  yet  permit  the 
University  to  make  very  special  provision  in  order  that  students 
may  hear  a  man  who  openly  speaks  of  one  of  the  foremost  educa- 
tors in  this  country  and  an  ex-president  of  Harvard  University 
as  "so  low  down  he  would  need  an  aeroplane  to  get  into  hell." 


45 

I  do  not  criticise  any  feature  of  the  old-time  religion,  but  I 
only  wonder  what  are  the  University's  standards  of  truth  and 
good  taste,  when  it  invites  a  second  time  the  man  who  declared 
before  its  assembled  students  and  instructors  massed  in  the  largest 
auditorium  the  University  affords,  that  "Jesus  Christ  is  either 
the  son  of  God  or  the  natural  offspring  of  a  Jewish  harlot." 


S.    WHAT  IS  THE  OLD-TIME  RELIGION? 

THE  INSPIRATION  OF  WHITEFIELD. 

"Here  in  Pennsylvania  the  University,  dating  from  1740,  when,  under 
the  inspiration  of  Whitefield,  the  plan  of  a  school  was  first  mooted,  has  out- 
grown its  modest  endowments." — Mr.  J.  G.  Rosengarten,  Proceedings  of 
the  American  Philosophical  Society,  Vol.  LII,  1913. 

THE  FIRST  HOME  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 

(From  A  History  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  from  its  Foundation  to 
A.  D.  1770.  By  Thomas  Harrison  Montgomery.  Phila. :  George  W. 
Jacobs  and  Co.,  1900.) 

At  the  close  of  the  year  1739  there  arrived  in  Philadelphia,  on  his  way 
to  his  Parish  and  Orphanage  at  Savannah,  the  Rev.  George  Whitefield,  a 
presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  the  fame  of  whose  extraordinary  pulpit 
powers  had  preceded  him,  though  he  was  a  young  man  but  twenty-four  years 
of  age.  Two  days  after  his  arrival,  on  Sunday,  4th  November,  he  preached 
in  Christ  Church,  and  read  prayers  there  and  preached  daily  for  a  week. 
Departing  for  New  York  on  the  12th,  where  he  was  not  allowed  to  preach  in 
Trinity  Church,  though  he  attended  both  the  Sunday  services;  he  returned 
to  Philadelphia  on  the  23d  and  departed  thence  on  the  29th  for  the  South, 
having  preached  daily  in  Christ  Church,  though  on  his  return  in  the  April 
following  he  was  inhibited  from  holding  any  service  or  preaching  there. 
Franklin  in  common  with  every  citizen  was  attracted  by  his  eloquence,  and  he 
formed  a  friendship  for  the  young  divine,  who  was  eight  years  his  junior, 
which  continued  until  his  death,  when  he  wrote  to  a  friend  "I  knew  him 
intimately  upwards  of  thirty  years.  His  integrity,  disinterestedness,  and 
indefatigable  zeal  in  prosecuting  every  good  work,  I  have  never  seen  equalled, 
and  shall  never  see  excelled."  .  .  .  Franklin  says  "we  had  no  religious 
connection.  He  us'd,  indeed,  sometimes  to  pray  for  my  conversion,  but 
never  had  the  satisfaction  of  believing  that  his  prayers  were  heard.  Ours 
was  a  mere  civil  friendship,  sincere  on  both  sides,  and  lasted  to  his  death." 

" .  .  .  It  being  found  inconvenient  to  assemble  in  the  open  air,"  Franklin 
says,  "...  the  work  was  carried  on  with  such  spirit  as  to  be  finished  in  a 
much  shorter  time  than  could  have  been  expected.  Both  house  and  ground 
were  vested  in  trustees  expressly  for  the  use  of  any  preacher  of  any  religious 
persuasion,  who  might  desire  to  say  something  to  the  people  at  Philadelphia." 
(Pp.  25-26.) 

Franklin  gave  a  very  liberal  construction  to  this  liberty  of  preaching,  in 
writing  of  it  in  after  years,  for  he  describes  the  "design  in  buildingn  ot  being 
to  accommodate  any  particular  sect,  but  the  inhabitants  in  general;  so  that 
even  if  the  Mufti  of  Constantinople  were  to  send  a  missionary  to  preach 
Mohammedanism  to  us,  he  would  find  a  pulpit  at  his  service."  (P.  111.) 

(46) 


47 

THEN  AND  Now. 
To  the  Editor  of  "The  Evening  Post": 

SIR:  In  1794  there  came  to  America  Joseph  Priestley,  the  English  scien- 
tist, famous  for  his  discovery  of  oxygen  and  for  his  political  and  religious 
radicalism.  In  the  words  of  Jefferson,  he  fled  from  the  fires  and  mobs  of 
Birmingham  in  order  to  gain  a  refuge  in  the  land  of  free  thought.  To  this 
man  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  offered  a  professorship,  and  at  about 
the  same  time  gave  an  honorary  degree  to  Thomas  Paine. 

Then  Philadelphia  was  the  center  of  liberal  learning  of  the  United  States, 
and  was  known  as  "the  Athens  of  America."  But  now  its  university,  once 
fathered  by  Franklin,  dismisses  clandestinely,  without  charges  and  without 
trial,  an  assistant  professor  of  economics  who  has  taken  an  active  interest 
in  political  betterment. 

WOODBEIDGE   RlLET. 

Vassar  College,  June  23d. 

THE  HONEST  HERETIC. 

(From  Chemistry  in  America,  Chapters  from  the  History  of  the  Science  in 
the  United  States.  By  Edgar  F.  Smith,  Blanchard  Professor  of  Chem- 
istry, University  of  Pennsylvania.  New  York:  D.  Appleton  and  Co., 
1914.  Chap.  V.)  ,:v  -  j 

The  arrival  of  Joseph  Priestley  in  America,  in  1794,  and  his  frequent 
presence  among  the  men  of  science  of  that  day,  greatly  stimulated  scientific 
studies.  The  minutes  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society  show  that  on 
various  occasions  he  was  present  at  the  ordinary  meetings  of  the  Society, 
which  would  mean  that  men  like  Woodhouse  and  others  probably  had  fre- 
quent intercourse  with  him,  and  thus,  learning  to  understand  the  man  in  his 
true  nature,  there  was  no  hostility  whatsoever  to  him.  Benjamin  Franklin 
had  made  the  most  strenuous  efforts  to  have  Priestley  locate  in  the  City  of 
Brotherly  Love.  He  had  been  his  friend  in  England.  He  spoke  of  him  as  the 
"HONEST  HERETIC,"  and  it  was  Franklin  who  had  very  materially  aided  him 
in  the  publication  of  his  "History  of  Electricity."  Some  of  his  most  ardent 
friends  were  also,  at  the  time,  holding  professional  chairs  in  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  he,  himself,  had  been  invited  to  occupy  the  Chair  of 
Chemistry  which  Woodhouse  later  accepted. 

(Extract  from  letter  of  Joseph  Priestley  to  Dr.  Benjamin  Rush,  November 
11,  1794.) 

" .  .  .  I  am  truly  sensible  of  the  honour  that  is  done  me  by  the  invitation, 
and  beg  that  you  would  express  it  for  me  to  all  the  peiaons  concerned. 
Nothing  could  have  been  so  pleasing  to  me  as  the  employment,  and  I  should 
have  been  happy  in  your  society,  and  that  of  other  friends  in  the  Capital, 
and,  what  I  have  much  at  heart,  I  SHOULD  HAVE  AN  OPPORTUNITY  OF  FORMING 
AN  UNITARIAN  CONGREGATION  IN  PHILADELPHIA.  .  .  ." 


48 

"A  WONDERFUL  DAT  AT  A  GREAT  UNIVERSITY" 
"The  higher  you  climb  the  plainer  you  are  seen." — BILLY  SUNDAY. 

(From  "Billy"  Sunday,  the  Man  and  His  Message.  By  William  T.  Elh'a, 
LL.D.  Philadelphia:  The  John  C.  Winston  Company  (1914),  pages 
343  seq.) 

Billy  Sunday  has  had  many  great  days  in  his  life — mountain-top  expe- 
riences of  triumphant  service;  exalted  occasions  when  it  would  seem  that 
the  climax  of  his  ministry  had  been  reached.  Doubtless,  though,  the  greatest 
day  of  his  crowded  life  was  the  thirtieth  of  March,  1914,  which  he  spent  with 
the  students  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  at  Philadelphia. 

The  interest  not  alone  of  a  great  university  but  also  of  a  great  city  was 
concentrated  upon  him  on  this  occasion.  An  imposing  group  of  discrimi- 
nating folk  took  the  opportunity  to  judge  the  much  discussed  evangelist  and 
his  work.  In  this  respect,  the  day  may  be  said  to  have  proved  a  turning  point 
in  the  public  career  of  the  evangelist.  It  silenced  much  of  the  widespread 
criticism  which  had  been  directed  toward  him  up  to  this  tune;  and  it  won 
for  him  the  encomiums  of  a  host  of  intellectual  leaders. 

What  Sunday's  own  impressions  of  that  day  were  may  be  understood 
from  the  prayer  he  offered  at  the  close  of  the  night  meeting. 

"Oh,  Jesus,  isn't  this  a  fine  bunch?  Did  you  ever  look  down  on  a  finer 
crowd?  I  don't  believe  there  is  a  mother  who  is  any  prouder  of  this  lot  of 
boys  than  I  am  tonight.  I  have  never  preached  to  a  more  appreciative  crowd, 
and  if  I  never  preach  another  sermon,  I  am  willing  to  go  home  to  glory 
tonight,  knowing  that  I  have  helped  save  the  boys  at  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania. Help  them  to  put  aside  temptations,  and  to  follow  in  the  paths  in 
which  Doctor  Smith  is  trying  to  guide  their  feet." 

.  .  .  The  three  addresses  given  on  that  day  were:  "What  Shall  I  Do 
with  Jesus?"  "Real  Manhood,"  and  "Hot-cakes  off  the  Griddle." 

These  fragments  of  the  three  addresses  culled  from  the  newspaper  reports 
give  the  flavor  of  the  messages  heard  by  the  students : 

"What  shall  I  do  with  Jesus? 

"This  question  is  just  as  pertinent  to  the  world  today  as  it  was  to 
Pilate,"  he  said.  "Pilate  had  many  things  to  encourage  and  discourage 
him,  but  no  man  ever  sought  to  do  anything  without  meeting  difficulties. 

"Pilate  should  have  been  influenced  by  his  wife's  dream,"  the  speaker 
continued,  whimsically  suggesting  that  he  didn't  care  what  sort  of  a  wife 
Pilate  had.  "She  may  have  been  one  of  those  miserable,  pliable,  plastic, 
two-faced,  two-by-four,  lick-spittle,  toot-my-own-horn  sort  of  women,  but 
Pilate  should  have  heeded  her  warning  and  set  Jesus  free,"  he  asserted. 

"Pilate  had  the  personality  of  Jesus  before  him  and  should  have  been 
influenced  by  this.  He  had  also  heard  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  even  if  he  had 
never  seen  them. 

"Why;  Jesus  was  cussed  and  discussed  from  one  end  of  the  land  to  the 
other.  All  he  had  to  do  was  to  say  '  Come  forth,'  and  the  graves  opened  like 
chestnut  burrs  in  the  fall,"  he  added.  .  .  . 


49 

"But  Pilate  was  just  one  of  those  rat-holed,  pin-headed,  pliable,  stand- 
pat,  free-lunch,  pie-counter  politicians.  He  was  the  direct  result  of  the 
machine  gang  in  Jewish  politics,  and  he  was  afraid  if  he  released  Christ  he 
would  lose  his  job." 

And  thus  ad  libitum. 

MR.  GEORGE  WHARTON  PEPPER  ON  "BILLY"  SUNDAY. 

(From  A  Voice  from  the  Crowd.    By  George  Wharton  Pepper.    New  Haven: 
Yale  University  Press,  1915.) 

It  requires  all  the  deep  religious  earnestness  of  a  man  like  Sunday  to 
rescue  revival  phraseology  from  an  offensive  materialism.  (P.  196.) 

THE  REV.  DR.  CHARLES  F.  AKED  ON  "  BILLY  "  SUNDAY. 
"And  parents  may  very  well  ponder  this: 

"  'PILATE  WAS  A  LICK-SPITTLE,  LOW-DOWN,  FREE-LUNCH,  HOG-POUCHBD, 
PLIABLE,  PLASTIC,  WARD-HEELING,  WHISKEY-SOAKED  GRAFT  POLITICIAN  OF 

HIS  DAY.' 

"If  their  boys  bring  this  language  into  the  home,  they — fathers  and 
mothers — will  understand  that  the  youngsters  have  not  been  to  a  prize  fight, 
nor  to  a  saloon,  nor  to  a  house  of  infamous  resort.  Parents  will  understand 
that  the  boys  have  been  to  a  religious  service,  and  have  listened  to  a  preacher 
who  by  the  grace  of  an  American  college  is  a  doctor  of  divinity,  and  who  is 
supported  by  the  leading  clergy  of  San  Francisco. 

"And  against  that  I  declare,  in  carefully  chosen  words,  that  even  if 
every  'result'  claimed  by  the  'official  press  agent'  is  as  recorded — a  colossal 
'if' — and  even  if  every  one  who  professes  'conversion'  is  a  penitent  and  a 
believer  in  Doctor  Sunday's  'gospel,'  then  the  injury  done  by  the  presenta- 
tion of  such  a  loathsome  gospel,  with  such  a  frightful  God,  such  a  grotesque 
Christ,  such  a  fantastic  heaven,  such  an  impossible  hell,  must  outmeasure 
and  outweigh  beyond  all  calculation  the  good  obtained  by  those  'results.' 
I  have  said,  and  I  say  again,  there  is  no  such  God,  no  such  Christ,  no  such 
heaven,  and  no  such  hell. 

"The  God  who  loves  us,  whose  I  am,  whom  I  serve,  the  God  whom  I 
revere,  is  the  God  whom  Jesus  taught  us  to  call  Father.  I  know  nothing  of 
the  fiendish  deity  of  Doctor  Sunday's  ravings,  nothing  of  his  silly  'devil,' 
and  nothing  of  his  grewsome  hell.  If  there  were  such  a  hell,  any  person  of 
ordinary  education  would  be  more  at  home  in  it  along  with  Darwin,  Spencer, 
Huxley  and  the  others  whom  he  calls  'infidels,'  than  with  Doctor  Sunday  in 
some  gross  heaven  which  we  could  not  distinguish  from  a  barroom. 

"  If  the  pulpit  and  the  pew  substitute  for  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  the 
gospel  according  to  'Billy'  Sunday,  then  Protestant  Christianity  is  doomed, 
and  man's  indignant  heart  will  turn  away  to  find  the  symbols  of  its  faith 
elsewhere."— The  Public  Ledger,  8/15/15. 


50 

THE  GOSPEL  OP  HELL. 

"Why,  after  hearing  some  of  these  'mutts,'  you  can't  tell  whether  man 
came  from  the  zoological  gardens  or  the  Garden  of  Eden.  Science  is  trans- 
forming our  religion.  We  are  'bughouse'  and  'daffy'  over  culture.  Science 
and  culture  are  all  right,  but  they  won't  save  you. 

"The  spirit  of  the  tunes  seems  to  be  that  of  getting  together  in  a  sort 
of  peace  conference,  like  that  iniquitous  Congress  of  Religions  in  Chicago  a 
few  years  ago.  'Let's  get  together,'  they  say,  'and  forget  the  points  on 
which  we  disagree.  We'll  throw  away  doctrinal  dogmas  that  clash.  We'll 
believe  in  only  those  things  on  which  we  are  in  accord.' 

"  Say,  if  you  do  that,  what  you've  got  left  won't  make  a  good  rummage  sale. 

"I  am  not  half  as  afraid  of  being  illiberal  as  I  am  of  being  out  of  harmony 
with  God.  There  are  many  better  preachers  than  I  am,  but" — and  here 
Sunday  leaped  into  the  air  and  shook  the  pulpit  desk  with  a  smashing  blow 
— "nobody  can  preach  a  better  gospel  than  I. 

"I  am  dogmatic.  I  believe  in  the  old-fashioned  religion,  and  I  most 
certainly  believe  in  the  old-fashioned  hell,  as  revealed  in  God's  Book  of 
Truth.  One  preacher  I  heard  of  who  told  his  congregation  that,  if  they 
sinned,  they  would  go  to  a  place  which  he  could  not  bring  himself  to  pro- 
nounce. I  can  pronounce  it.  It's  H-E-L-L.  That's  what  it  is. 

"I'd  rather  have  standing  room  in  heaven,"  he  shouted,  "than  have  a 
quit-claim  deed  to  the  universe  and  frizzle  in  hell.  Some  of  you  who  haven't 
read  a  page  of  the  Bible  in  the  last  ten  years,  don't  you  blame  God  if  you  wake 
up  in  hell.  God  gave  you  the  Bible  to  keep  you  out  of  hell.  Don't  be  fooled. 
Somebody  says  that  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson  didn't  believe  in  hell.  But  Ralph 
Waldo  Emerson  will  go  to  hell  if  he  rejects  Jesus  Christ.  It  isn't  my  fault. 
I  didn't  invent  the  plan  of  salvation. 

'  If  all  the  devils  from  hell  came  here  and  sat  in  these  chairs  and  told  me 
there  was  no  hell,  I'd  tell  them  to  go  to  hell.  Jesus  Christ  talked  more  about 
hell  than  he  did  about  heaven.  Read  his  graphic  description  of  it  and  then 
tell  me  if  hell  was  made  to  conform  to  the  comforts  of  a  sinner." — BILLY 
SUNDAY  in  the  Evening  Ledger,  9/1/15. 

"TIDINGS  OP  GREAT  JOY." 
(From  A  Voice  from  the  Crowd.    By  George  Wharton  Pepper.    New  Haven: 

Yale  University  Press,  1915.) 

If  you  are  going  to  preach  the  Gospel,  please  do  not  forget  that  you  are 
the  bearer  of  tidings  of  great  joy.  .  .  . 

Some  time  ago  I  was  one  of  a  great  audience  assembled  to  hear  Mr. 
Sunday.  Almost  all  those  present  were  college  students.  Before  he  began 
to  speak,  the  young  faces  had  upon  them  a  curious  and  unnatural  look  of 
depression.  " Cheer  up! "  said  the  evangelist,]" you're  not  hi  church."  (P.  17.) 

Perhaps,  however,  as  a  voice  from  the  crowd,  I  may  be  permitted  to 
record  my  own  belief  in  the  reasonableness  of  the  Christian  solution  of  life's 
problems  and  my  own  conviction  that  difficulties  of  acceptance  are  more 
often  moral  than  intellectual.  Indeed  there  is  almost  an  element  of  humor 


51 

in  the  intellectual  fastidiousness  of  some  of  my  friends  when  it  conies  to  the 
acceptance  of  religious  teaching.  ...  At  crises  in  my  religious  life,  how- 
ever, I  have  been  fortunate  enough  to  be  aware  that  it  was  my  will  that  was 
on  trial  rather  than  what  I  am  pleased  to  call  my  intellect.  (Pp.  117-8.) 

There  are  not  a  few  ministers  of  the  sensational  sort  who  are  to  be  heard 
in  Christian  pulpits  and  whose  pictures  are  to  be  found  in  daily  newspapers. 
Not  seldom  their  utterances  are  directed  at  community  evils  which  ought  to 
be  remedied.  (P.  109.) 

If  a  moral  issue  were  to  be  presented  at  the  polls  it  may  be  conceded  that 
he  would  have  a  duty  to  perform  not  only  as  a  citizen  but  as  a  Christian 
minister.  On  the  other  hand,  a  genuine  moral  issue  in  fact  seldom  arises. 
.  .  .  The  preacher's  primary  duty  is  revelation.  .  .  .  His  rule  should 
be  to  refrain  from  political  utterance  unless  he  cannot  honestly  quiet  his 
conscience  in  so  doing.  In  that  event  let  him  make  haste  slowly  and  before 
he  speaks  let  him  confer  with  the  most  reputable  man  he  can  find  who  holds 
the  view  which  he  proposes  to  denounce.  If  after  such  a  conference  his  duty 
to  speak  still  seems  clear,  let  him  by  all  means  speak  his  mind  but  tem- 
perately and  as  if  our  Lord  were  within  hearing.  (Pp.  92-3.) 

FBOM  THE  WHARTON  DEED  OP  GIFT. 
The  general  tendency  of  instruction  shall  inculcate: 

THE  DEEP  COMFORT  AND  HEALTHFULNESS  OF  PECUNIARY  INDEPENDENCE, 
WHETHER  THF  SCALE  OF  AFFAIRS  BE  SMALL  OR  GREAT. 


ECONOMICS  OR  RELIGION? 

(From  Declaration  of  Independence  at  U.  of  P.,  by  Raymond  G.  Fuller, 
Boston  Evening  Transcript,  June  26,  1915.) 

In  March  the  provost  refused  to  permit  Samuel  Gompers  to  give  an 
address  on  the  campus,  Mr.  Gompers  having  accepted  an  invitation  from  the 
Civic  Club  of  the  University.  The  students  thereupon  formed  a  "Free 
Speech  Club"  and  heard  the  address  in  a  hall  off  the  campus.  Gompers 
must  keep  away,  but  the  University  authorities  welcomed  "Billy"  Sunday. 
It  is  the  "Billy"  Sunday  crowd  that  is  responsible  for  the  Nearing  case. 

I  do  not  mean  that  the  men  on  the  board  of  trustees  are  the  same  men 
who  brought  "Billy"  Sunday  to  Philadelphia.  I  do  mean  that  they  repre- 
sent the  same  attitude  toward  the  social  movement.  They  are  the  men 
who  regard  as  Socialists  all  who  see  injustice  and  wrong  in  the  present  eco- 
nomic order  of  things.  They  consider  Scott  Nearing  a  Socialist,  though  he 
is  not.  They  are  the  men  who  see  only  through  corporation  eyes. 

Pennsylvania  and  Philadelphia  politics  are  known  the  country  over. 
When  "Billy"  Sunday  was  here  he  was  asked  by  the  Public  Ledger  if  he 
had  the  nerve  to  tell  the  truth  about  political  conditions  and  the  men  who  are 
responsible  for  them.  These  men  financed  his  campaign.  They  brought 
him  here.  "Billy"  Sunday  hadn't  the  nerve.  He  could  have  worked 


52 

miracles  for  the  purification  of  political  conditions  in  city  and  state,  but  he 
passed  up  the  opportunity.  He  was  paid  for  other  work.  He  was  paid  to 
put  a  "quietus"  on  "social  unrest." 

For  Billy  Sunday's  economic  doctrine  is  this,  in  his  own  words:  "There's 
a  lot  of  good-for-nothing  lobsters  think  they  are  called  by  God  to  go  up  and 
down  the  country  harping  for  a  limitation  of  wealth  and  damning  the  rich 
man  for  every  dollar  he  has,  while  they  sit  around  and  cuss  and  damn  and 
never  work." 

ANOTHER  VOICE  FROM  THE  CROWD. 

Roger  W.  Babson,  noted  throughout  the  country  as  a  statistician,  who 
does  work  almost  exclusively  for  big  corporations,  charged  in  an  interview 
at  Boston  that  Billy  Sunday  was  brought  to  this  city  not  for  the  purposes 
of  evangelism,  but  to  avert  a  strike  on  the  Philadelphia  Rapid  Transit 
Company. 

Confirmation  of  the  reason  for  bringing  Sunday  to  this  city  was  made 
by  P.  J.  Kerrane,  secretary  of  Local  477,  Amalgamated  Association  of  Street 
and  Electric  Railway  employes. 

Mr.  Babson's  remarks  were  read  to  Mr.  Kerrane.  "We  have  been 
working  for  two  or  three  years  to  get  a  strike  for  higher  pay,"  he  said.  "The 
reason  given  by  Mr.  Babson  for  bringing  'Billy'  Sunday  to  this  city  is  correct, 
in  my  opinion." 

Absolute  denials  of  the  truth  of  Babson's  charge  were  made  in  other 
quarters.  No  one  would  admit  that  the  P.  R.  T.  carmen  were  on  the  verge 
of  a  strike,  as  Mr.  Babson  insisted. 

This  is  Babson's  statement: 

"There  is  a  league  to  enforce  peace  in  Philadelphia.  It  is  financed  by 
millionaires.  '  Billy '  Sunday  is  the  best  strike-breaker  the  country  has  pro- 
duced, and  they  are  willing  to  pay  him  for  strike-breaking.  These  men 
whom  I  know  personally  on  the  'Billy'  Sunday  committees  are  the  most 
conservative  men  alive.  There  was  going  to  be  a  big  strike  on  rapid  transit 
in  Philadelphia,  as  I  know  since  employers  pay  my  office  to  keep  them 
informed  of  labor  conditions. 

Some  one  told  the  rapid  transit  people  that  'Billy'  Sunday  would  fix 
them  up  and  avert  the  strike  for  two  or  three  years.  He  does  it  by  preaching 
that  it  doesn't  matter  what  they  get  in  this  world,  they  can  lay  it  up  in 
heaven. 

"He  asks  what  difference  it  makes  whether  you  get  $2  or  $5  a  day,  so 
long  as  you  are  only  to  be  here  twenty  years  or  so  and  in  hell  an  eternity. 

"I  have  not  heard  that  a  strike  was  impending  just  before  the  time  that 
'Billy'  Sunday  came  here,"  said  Mr.  Kerrane,  "but  our  working  people,  with 
an  intelligent  view  of  conditions,  know  that  what  Mr.  Babson  says  is  true. 
Undoubtedly  'Billy'  Sunday  was  brought  here  to  deflect  their  attention  from 
hours  and  pay  to  the  world  hereafter.  That  is  the  purpose  of  the  wealthy 
men  who  stood  behind  'Billy'  Sunday  in  Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  Paterson 
and  the  other  places  he  has  visited." — The  Evening  Ledger,  7/19/15. 


53 

AN  OBSTACLE  TO  REFORMS. 

(From  Professor  E.  P.  Cheyney'e  address  to  the  Graduate  Alumni  on  "The 
Agitator  in  History.") 

The  obstacle  to  which  I  refer  was  religion.  The  bishops  in  the  House  of 
Lords  were  a  solid  phalanx,  voting  uniformly  and  consistently  against  the 
great  social  and  political  reforms  which  have  given  their  name  and  character 
to  the  period  we  are  discussing.  Of  the  majority  in  the  House  of  Lords  that 
so  long  blocked  the  amelioration  of  the  penal  code,  a  considerable  portion  were 
the  bishops.  Twice  bills  for  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade  passed  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  but  were  defeated  in  the  House  of  Lords,  the  bishops 
all  but  unanimously  voting  against  the  proposed  reform.  The  enfranchise- 
ment of  the  Roman  Catholics  was  long  successfully  obstructed,  and  at  the 
last  moment  much  endangered  by  the  opposition  of  the  clergy  of  the  established 
church.  On  the  other  hand,  the  least  regular  of  the  religious  denominations, 
the  Quakers  and  the  Unitarians,  contributed  most  to  the  cause  of  reform,  and 
much  assistance  to  propaganda  for  these  humanitarian  measures  came  from 
outside  of  the  religious  bodies  altogether.  My  Quaker  ancestors  obtained 
alike  the  condemnation  of  the  churchmen  and  the  gratitude  of  the  reformers 
of  that  tune.  It  is  a  curious  observation  that  heresy  and  reform  have  so 
generally  gone  together.  History  is  full  of  instances;  certainly  it  was  so  in 
this  case. 

Do  not  understand  me  to  speak  in  disparagement  of  religion,  to  question 
its  value,  or  even  to  deny  the  part  which  individual  religious  men  have  taken 
in  movements  for  reform.  In  other  connections  than  this,  tribute  might  well 
be  paid  to  the  deep  significance  of  religion  in  human  life,  but  in  the  investi- 
gation with  which  we  are  now  concerned,  its  part  was  one  of  obstruction  and 
not  advancement.  As  a  plain  historical  fact,  the  footsteps  of  the  progress 
of  humanity  during  this  period  neither  entered  nor  emerged  from  the  churches: 
they  walked  a  different  path.  This  can  perhaps  be  explained.  Religion  in 
England  at  this  time  had  its  main  embodiment  in  the  established  church. 
Once  a  hierarchy  established,  a  church  endowed,  legal  rights  obtained,  social 
standing  acknowledged,  a  creed  and  catechism  formulated,  and  we  have  a 
group  of  the  most  nearly  stationary  institutions  that  human  society  has  ever 
developed. 

Other  reasons  may  have  existed.  To  the  devotee  this  earth  was  after 
all  only  a  pilgrimage.  What  mattered  the  miseries  of  a  few  short  years 
compared  with  indefinite  ages  of  eternity?  Was  it  worth  while  to  take  any 
interest  in  bettering  the  conditions  of  this  vale  of  tears?  Was  not  the  part 
of  Pilgrim  who  ran  away  from  the  City  of  Destruction  the  better  one?  More- 
over, the  strongly  religious  man,  recognizing  that  the  ways  of  Providence  are 
past  finding  out,  may  have  hesitated  to  interfere  with  the  divine  guidance  of 
the  world.  He  might  have  said,  it  is  God's  world,  not  ours;  if  there  is  injustice 
and  inequality  and  suffering,  they  may  be  here  for  a  purpose,  and  we  should 
accept  them,  not  struggle  to  get  rid  of  them;  submission,  not  reform,  should 
be  the  object  of  our  efforts.  Whether  this  opposition  to  reform  or  languid 
interest  in  reform  was  inherent  in  the  religious  spirit  or  only  a  chance  accom- 


54 

paniment  of  it  in  the  circumstances  we  have  been  studying,  the  historical 
fact  remains,  that  it  was  against  religious  opposition  either  active  or  passive 
that  the  reforms  I  have  described  were  attained. 

SCOTT  NEARING  TO  BILLY  SUNDAY. 
(From  the  North  American,  2/2/15.) 

February  1,  1915. 
Rev.  William  A.  Sunday,  No.  1814  Spring  Garden  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa.: 

DEAB  SIR — During  the  past  four  weeks  I  have  heard  and  read  a  number 
of  your  sermons.  You  are  endeavoring  to  preach  the  religion  which  Jesus 
Christ  summed  up  in  the  two  commandments — "Love  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart"  and  "Love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  People  are  flocking  to  hear 
you.  They  weigh  your  words  and  believe  them. 

Would  you  inspire  them  with  the  true  spirit  of  Christ? 

Let  me  suggest  one  aspect  of  the  neighbor  problem  in  Philadelphia  which 
offers  you  an  unusual  opportunity  for  service. 

You  are  preaching  in  a  winter  almost  without  parallel  for  the  frightful 
amount  of  distress  and  suffering  among  the  poor,  yet  you  have  directed  your 
invective  against  the  churches  mainly. 

Why?  Are  the  churches  the  chief  culprits?  Is  not  the  world  beginning 
to  realize  that  today  the  most  sinister  crimes  against  the  ideals  of  Christ's 
religion  are  committed  by  the  system  of  industry  for  profit — a  system  which 
pays  wages  so  hideously  low  that  if  the  poor  were  made  spiritually  and 
morally  perfect  they  would  still  be  abjectly  poor? 

Interpret  your  doctrine  of  salvation  in  terms  of  modern  life! 

Would  not  Jesus,  if  He  were  face  to  face  with  a  multitude  of  ten-dollar- 
a-week  men,  feed  their  bodies  before  he  attempted  to  save  their  souls? 

You  have  declared  your  interest  in  the  salvation  of  Philadelphia. 

Look  around  you  and  ask  yourself  what  salvation  means  here. 

The  city  is  filled  with  unemployment  and  poverty;  multitudes  are  literally 
starving;  thousands  of  little  children  toil  in  the  city's  factories  and  stores; 
its  workers,  a  third  of  a  million  strong,  have  no  workmen's  compensation  law 
for  their  protection.  Meanwhile  the  railroad  interests  which  control  the 
hard  coal  fields  are  reaping  exorbitant  profits;  the  traction  company  exacts 
the  highest  fares  paid  by  the  people  of  any  American  city;  the  manufacturers, 
intrenched  at  Harrisburg,  are  fighting  tooth  and  claw  to  prevent  the  passage 
of  up-to-date  labor  laws,  and  the  vested  interests  are  placing  property  rights 
above  men's  souls. 

These  monstrous  offenses  against  humanity — this  defiance  of  the  spirit 
of  Christ's  gospel — exist  today  in  the  city  which  hears  your  message. 

And  further:  The  well-fed  people,  whose  ease  and  luxury  are  built  upon 
this  poverty,  child  labor  and  exploitation,  sit  in  your  congregation,  contribute 
to  your  campaign  funds,  entertain  you  socially,  and  invite  you  to  hold  prayer 
meetings  in  their  homes. 

These  are  they  that  bind  grievous  burdens  on  men's  shoulders,  that  make 


55 

clean  the  outside  of  the  cup  and  the  platter — the  devourers  of  widows'  houses, 
against  whom  Christ  hurled  His  curses. 

Here  is  Dives;  yonder  is  Lazarus.  And  it  is  Dives  who  has  made  your 
campaign  financially  possible. 

Make  no  mistake!  The  chief  priests,  scribes  and  Pharisees  of  Philadel- 
phia will  never  crucify  you  while  you  deal  in  theological  pleasantries.  Has  it 
occurred  to  you  that  their  kindness  is  a  return  for  your  services  in  helping 
them  to  divert  attention  from  real,  pressing  worldly  injustice  to  heavenly 
bliss?  Turn  your  oratorical  brilliancy  for  a  moment  against  low  wages,  over- 
work, unemployment,  monopoly  and  special  privilege. 

Before  you  leave  Philadelphia  will  you  speak  these  truths? 

We  pray  "Thy  Kingdom  come  on  earth."  While  men  are  underpaid, 
while  women  are  overworked,  while  children  grow  up  in  squalor,  while 
exploitation  and  social  injustice  remain,  the  Kingdom  of  God  never  can 
come  on  earth  and  never  will. 

Yours  truly, 

SCOTT  NEAKINQ. 

ECCLESIASTICISM  DOOMED. 
(By  W.  S.  Rainsford,  in  the  New  Republic.) 

The  world  has  not  tired  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  thinks  more  about  Him  than 
it  has  ever  done  before.  It  honors  Him,  believes  in  Him,  and  wants  to  fol- 
low Him.  Men  who  look  into  their  own  lives  and  hearts  (and  such  men 
ultimately  lead  their  fellow  men),  men  who  are  intelligent  enough  to  observe 
the  course  of  the  world  in  which  they  live,  feel  that  these  times  need  Him 
as  truly  as  have  any  times  needed  Him  since  He  was  a  baby  born.  So  much 
is  sure. 

Another  thing  seems  equally  sure.  It  is  this:  That  Christianity  as  it 
has  been  prockimed  by  the  orthodox  churches  can  no  longer  hope  to  win 
a  world-wide  influence.  It  has  lost  what  it  claimed  to  possess,  the  power  to 
uplift  and  guide  the  nations,  to  draw  men  to  each  other,  to  base  human  life 
on  human  brotherhood.  Confronted  with  national  hatreds  and  jealousies, 
it  has  utterly  broken  down.  The  great  national  churches  have  played  an 
insignificant  and  unworthy  part  In  the  vast  drama  now  unfolding.  These 
churches  have  either  perverted  what  Jesus  taught,  or  they  have  placed  false 
emphasis  on  His  teachings.  They  have  insisted  on  things  He  cared  little  for, 
or  knew  nothing  about,  such  as  creeds,  sacraments  and  dogmas,  and  they 
have  eagerly  strived  for  things  He  distinctly  refused  to  have  anything  to  do 
with,  political  position  and  social  power.  They  have  not  insisted,  as  He  did, 
that  to  love  God,  and  when  we  fail  to  do  that,  then  to  do  the  next  thing  to  it, 
viz.,  love  men,  is  the  one  real,  possible,  saving,  immediate  duty  of  all  who 
would  be  His  disciples. 

The  religious  world  we  have  known  can  never  be  the  same  world  again. 
The  sort  of  Christianity  we  were  generally  taught  as  boys  can  never  be  taught 
again.  Men  will  have  a  real  Jesus,  an  actual  leader  and  teacher,  or  if  He  is 
made  impossible  to  them,  they  will  find  some  other  race  leader,  for  we  are 
all  incurably  religious.  The  churches  have,  with  the  best  intentions,  disguised 


56 

their  Lord.  Some  of  the  disguises  they  have  clothed  Him  in  are  beautiful 
and  reverable,  but  even  the  beautiful  ones  must  finally  go  to  the  rag-bin. 
Multitudes  feel  that  the  real  Jesus,  when  He  is  presented  to  men,  still  draws 
all  that  is  best  in  the  human  heart  to  Himself — still  has  power,  as  has  no 
other,  to  save  men  from  their  sins.  But  of  ecclesiasticism  our  age  is  sick. 
It  has  disguised  and  distorted  the  master  of  men.  Its  doom  is  the  rubbish 
heap,  to  which  Jesus  condemned  it  long  ago. 

"DIVINITY  SCHOOL  TO  MOVE  NEAR  UNIVERSITY." 

"The  Trustees  of  the  University  have  emphasized  the  fact  that  the 
removal  of  the  Divinity  School  to  a  site  near  their  institution  will  not  indicate 
that  the  big  institution  of  learning  has  become  sectarian." 

(Alumni  Register,  November,  1914.) 

COMPULSORY  CHAPEL. 

(Editorial  Comment:  "A  University  Chapel,"  in  the  Alumni  Register,  for 
February,  1915.) 

"  "The  most  interesting  and  important  phenomenon  in  student  life  in 
the  United  States  is  the  religious  awakening.  Perhaps  in  no  American  uni- 
versity is  the  new  spirit  more  potent  than  in  Pennsylvania.'  So  wrote 
George  Wharton  Pepper,  '87,  a  trustee  of  the  University,  last  year.  .  .  ." 

"  Provost  Smith  has  said :  '  The  greatest  present  religious  need  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania  is  a  chapel  building  which  would  accommodate  the 
entire  student  body  and  would  provide  an  adequate  center  for  church  activities 
within  the  University,  under  the  executive  management  of  the  Christian 
Association.  Such  a  building  would  conserve  the  wonderful  unity  which  now 
exists  in  all  departments  of  the  religious  and  social  work  of  the  University.' 

"This  is  a  logical  development  of  the  demand  of  the  students  for  com- 
pulsory chapel  and  their  interest  in  a  recent  evangelistic  campaign.  With 
all  these  signs  of  life  in  the  big  body  it  would  be  well  to  carefully  direct  and 
conserve  it  so  that  it  may  not  run  to  abuse  or  discouragement." 

The  Alumni  Register's  first  editorial  in  the  April,  1915,  number,  entitled 
"Literae  Sine  Moribus  Vanae,"  is  as  follows: — 

"The  Red  and  Blue  says  that  'attendance  at  chapel  has  ceased  to  be 
required.'  It  continues  to  make  the  following  observations  about  the  sub- 
ject in  general: 

"  'And  if  the  cut  and  dried  religious  tone  of  the  meetings  is  adhered  to 
voluntary  chapel  also  will  fail  as  it  has  here  in  the  past  and  as  it  has  at  other 
big  cosmopolitan  universities.  The  student  doesn't  want  to  be  preached  to 
incessantly.  He  can  get  that  on  the  Sabbath  Day,  if  he  has  a  mind  for  it. 
He  wants  chapel  to  be  a  place  where  he  can  get  a  quickening  of  his  better 
impulses;  where  he  can  have  his  thoughts  lifted  from  the  muck  of  the  com- 
monplace; where  his  mind  will  be  elevated  to  a  realm  of  the  beautiful,  the 
good,  and  the  sublime.  A  sermon  is  only  one  means  to  the  end.  A  talk  that 
voices  the  thought  of  some  of  the  world's  greatest  thinkers  would  accomplish 


57 

the  result  without  injuring  sectarian  prejudice.  Music  ia  one  of  the  surest 
means  of  sounding  the  sweetest  and  noblest  chords  of  the  soul.  We  have 
musical  clubs  who  entertain  others,  but  whom  we  never  hear.  Why  could 
they  not  favor  us  in  chapel  occasionally?  We  have  scholars  among  the 
Faculty  whose  words  would  be  an  inspiration.  We  have  alumni  who  have 
climbed  high  on  the  ladder  of  attainment.  Why  could  not  these,  with  others 
of  the  world's  great  who  would  be  honored  to  come,  be  invited  to  address 
us?  If  chapel  were  conducted  on  these  lines,  it  would  attract  and  uplift  all 
and  would  offend  none.' 

"Evidently  this  youthful  editor  wants  to  turn  the  worship  of  God  into  a 
Town  Meeting,  or  perhaps  a  play  like  'Bringing  up  Father'  would  suit  him 
better.  Spiritual  awakening  and  acknowledgment  can  only  be  realized  by  a 
step  aside  from  the  immediate  into  such  a  place  and  practice  that  one  may 
experience  the  reality  of  what  lies  beyond  and  above  all  opinion  and  difference 
and  enter  into  a  deeper  consciousness  of  Divine  guidance  and  inspiration." 

The  Alumni  Register  goes  on  to  mention  the  influence  of  Provost  Smith, 
and  to  quote  from  his  talk  to  the  alumni  on  the  evening  of  University  Day: 

"  'The  University  of  Pennsylvania  was  founded  by  God-fearing  men  and 
women.  When  the  University  first  opened  its  doors  to  the  public,  it  opened 
them  with  prayer.  As  the  students  entered  the  University,  they  were  given 
a  prayer  book  by  the  Trustees  of  the  University,  and  every  student  read  a 
morning  prayer  in  his  chamber  and  then  repaired  to  the  old  college  and  there 
united  with  the  other  students  in  more  formal  prayer  or  service.  At  the 
close  of  the  day  every  student  retired  to  his  room  and  repeated  one  of  the 
prayers  that  were  written  by  Richard  Peters,  a  man  who  later  became  presi- 
dent of  the  Board  of  Trustees. ' " 


10.    WHICH  IS  THE  OLD-TIME  EDUCATION? 

BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN. 

(From  Proposals  relating  to  the  Education  of  Youth  in  Pensilvania.     Phila- 
delphia:   Printed  in  the  Year  MDCCXLIX.) 

The  Idea  of  what  is  true  Merit,  should  also  be  often  presented  to  Youth, 
explain'd  and  impress'd  on  their  Minds,  as  consisting  in  an  Inclination  join'd 
with  an  Ability  to  serve  Mankind,  one's  Country,  Friends  and  Family;  which 
Ability  is  (with  the  Blessing  of  God)  to  be  acquir'd  or  greatly  increas'd  by 
true  Learning,  and  should  indeed  be  the  great  Aim  and  End  of  all  Learning. 

As  to  their  STUDIES,  it  would  be  well  if  they  could  be  taught  every  Thing 
that  is  useful,  and  every  Thing  that  is  ornamental:  But  Art  is  long,  and 
their  Time  is  short.  It  is  therefore  proposed  that  they  learn  those  things 
that  are  likely  to  be  most  useful  and  most  ornamental,  Regard  being  had  to  the 
several  Professions  for  which  they  are  intended.  .  .  . 

The  English  Language  might  be  taught  by  Grammar,  in  which  some  of 
our  best  writers,  as  Tillotson,  Addison,  Pope,  Algernon  Sidney,  Cato's  Letters, 
&c  should  be  classicks:  The  Stiles  principally  to  be  cultivated,  being  the 
clear  and  the  concise. 

When  Youth  are  told,  that  the  Great  Men  whose  Lives  and  Actions 
they  read  in  History,  spoke  two  of  the  best  Languages  that  ever  were,  the 
most  expressive,  copious,  beautiful;  and  that  the  finest  Writings,  the  most 
correct  Compositions,  the  most  perfect  Productions  of  human  Wit  and  Wis- 
dom, are  in  those  Languages  which  have  endured  Ages,  and  will  endure  while 
there  are  Men,  that  no  Translation  can  do  them  justice,  or  give  the  Pleasure 
found  in  Reading  the  Originals;  .  .  .  they  may  be  thereby  made  desirous  of 
learning  those  Languages,  and  their  Industry  sharpen'd  in  the  Acquisition  of 
them  .  .  .  and  though  all  should  not  be  compell'd  to  learn  Latin,  Greek, 
or  the  modern  foreign  Languages;  yet  none  that  have  an  ardent  Desire  to 
learn  them  should  be  refused;  their  English,  Arithmetick,  and  other  Studies 
absolutely  necessary,  being  at  the  same  Time  not  neglected. 

THE  REV.  WILLIAM  SMITH,  D.D. 

(From  A  General  Idea  of  the  College  of  Mirania.       By  the  Rev.  William 
Smith,  D.D.,  1753.) 

They  were  convinced  that,  without  a  previous  good  Education,  the  best 
Laws  are  little  better  than  Verba  minantia,  and  considered  as  such,  will  be 
duped  and  broke  thro'  with  impunity  by  illustrious  Villains;  that  the  Magis- 
trate can  at  best  but  fight  vice  into  a  corner,  and  that  'tis  Education  alone  can 
mend  and  rectify  the  Heart;  that  no  Government  can  subsist  long  on  Violence 
and  brute  Force,  and  that  Nature  follows  easily  when  treated  rationally,  but 
will  not  bear  to  be  led,  or  driven. 

(58) 


59 

With  regard  to  learning,  the  Miranians  divide  the  whole  body  of  people 
into  two  grand  classes.  The  first  consists  of  those  designed  for  the  learned 
professions;  by  which  they  understand  divinity,  law,  physic,  agriculture, 
and  the  chief  officers  of  the  State.  The  second  class  of  those  designed  for 
mechanic  professions,  and  all  the  remaining  people  of  the  country  .... 
These  considerations  gave  rise  to  what  is  called  the  Mechanics'  School  in 
this  Seminary.  It  might,  however,  as  well  have  been  called  a  distinct  college; 
for  it  is  in  no  way  connected  with  what  is  called  the  College  (by  way  of  Dis- 
tinction) than  by  being  under  the  Inspection  of  the  same  Trustees,  and  the 
Government  of  the  same  Head,  whom  they  call  Provost  or  Principal.  Most  of 
the  Branches  of  Science,  taught  in  the  College,  are  taught  in  this  School; 
but  then  they  are  taught  without  languages,  and  in  a  more  compendious 
manner,  as  the  circumstances  and  Business  of  the  Mechanic  require. 

This  school  is  so  much  like  the  English  School  in  Philadelphia  first 
sketched  out  by  the  very  ingenious  and  worthy  Mr.  Franklin,  that  a  par- 
ticular Account  of  it  here  is  needless. 

(From  a  hitherto  unpublished  sermon  in  the  Alumni  Register,  Vol. 
XV,  Sept.,  1912.) 

"Nevertheless  a  Person,  who  knows  himself  endued  with  Reason  & 
Understanding;  will  not  be  content  to  take  his  Knowledge  entirely  at  second 
Hand,  on  Subjects  so  important  as  the  nature  &  fitness  of  things,  &  the  sum- 
mum  bonum  of  man  he  will  not  care  to  rely  wholly  on  a  historical  Knowledge, 
founded  on  the  Experience  &  Testimony  of  others;  however  much  his  Labours 
may  be  shortened  thereby.  He  will  think  it  his  Duty  to  examine  for  himself 
and  to  acquire  a  Moral  &  Physical  Knowledge;  founded  on  his  own  Expe- 
rience and  Observation." 

MR.  GEORGE  WHARTON  PEPPER/ 

(From  A  Voice  from  the  Crowd.     By  George  Wharton  Pepper.      New  Haven: 
Yale  University  Press,  1915.) 

My  answer  is  that  on  the  Christian  theory  there  are  really  no  such  things 
as  secular  and  religious  education.  .  .  .  Subtract  God  and  you  get — not 
secular  education,  but  no  education  at  all.  (P.  100.) 

A  better  way  of  saying  the  same  thing  is  to  assert  that  a  Christian 
teacher,  really  in  earnest  about  the  coming  of  the  Kingdom,  would  use  the 
teaching  of  every  subject  as  an  opportunity  to  reveal  God  to  the  child.  (P.  102.) 

If,  then,  a  duty  is  laid  upon  us  to  propagate  our  religion,  how  can  the 
duty  be  discharged?  .  .  . 

Most  of  our  colleges  and  universities  are  administered  upon  a  principle 
which  divides  religion  from  education.  ...  In  many  instances  the  prevail- 
ing sentiment  of  the  university  is  definitely  hostile  to  organized  Christianity. 
.  .  .  We  include  nowadays  among  subjects  studied  in  the  universities  many 
courses  with  high-sounding  names  which  are  scarcely  more  than  opportunities 
for  instructors  to  express  their  individual  views  upon  the  great  problems  of 
life.  .  .  .  The  instructor's  criticism  ia  destructive.  He  usually  makes  no 


60 

effort  to  supply  a  substitute  for  that  which  he  would  destroy.  The  preacher 
of  the  academic  type  may  do  little  good;  but  he  is  at  least  proclaiming  a 
positive  philosophy  and  is  not  engaged  in  subverting  foundations.  .  .  . 

The  teacher  who  interprets  all  of  life  in  terms  of  brotherhood  is  respon- 
sible for  leading  the  student  to  forget  God.  (Pp.  105-10.) 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  the  religious  group  which  has  perceived 
most  clearly  the  dangers  of  a  secularized  education.  .  .  . 

When  the  question  of  compulsory  religious  education  for  the  children  of 
religious  people  becomes  a  live  political  issue  it  will  be  deplorable  if  all  Christian 
citizens  do  not  feel  able  to  range  themselves  on  the  same  side.  .  .  . 

To  know  God  would  be  recognized  as  the  highest  use  of  human  faculties 
and  education  would  be  perceived  to  consist  in  the  development  of  all  em- 
powers to  this  great  end.  For  ethical  codes  without  compelling  power,  there 
would  be  substituted  moral  teaching  with  a  religious  sanction.  .  .  . 

I  confess  myself  wholly  without  suspicion  respecting  the  motives  and 
aims  of  our  Roman  Catholic  brethren.  If  I  am  alive  when  they  propound 
a  remedy  for  existing  mischiefs  I  shall  make  an  earnest  effort  to  place  myself 
in  agreement  with  their  proposal.  .  .  . 

"Teacher,"  the  Herodians  said  to  Him  on  one  occasion,  "we  know  that 
you  are  an  honest  man  and  that  you  teach  the  Way  of  God  honestly  and  are 
not  afraid  of  anyone;  for  you  pay  no  regard  to  a  man's  position.  Tell  us, 
then,  what  you  think.  Are  we  right  in  paying  taxes  to  the  Emperor  or  not?" 
When  at  His  direction  they  showed  Him  a  florin,  He  asked,  "Whose  head  and 
title  are  these?"  "The  Emperor's,"  they  answered:  on  which  He  said  to 
them,  "  Then  pay  to  the  Emperor  what  belongs  to  the  Emperor  and  to  God 
what  belongs  to  God." 

Men  and  brethren,  it  may  be  for  us  a  perilous  thing  if  with  this  injunction 
ringing  in  our  ears  we  continue  longer  to  render  to  the  Prince  of  this  World 
the  educational  tribute  that  is  due  to  the  King  of  Kings.  (Pp.  124-32.) 

JOSEPH  WHARTON. 
(From  Joseph  Wharton's  Deed  of  Gift.) 

.  .  .    The  school  shall  offer  facilities  for  obtaining: 

(1)  An  adequate  education  in  the  principles  underlying  successful  civil 
government. 

(2)  A  training  suitable  for  those  who  intend  to  engage  in  business  or  to 
undertake  the  management  of  property. 

In  carrying  out  these  two  purposes  the  general  tendency  of  instruction 
shall  inculcate: 

(a)  The  duty  of  every  one  to  perform  well  and  cheerfully  his  part  as  a 
member  of  the  community  whose  prosperity  he  thus  advances  and  shares. 

(6)  The  immorality  and  practical  inexpediency  of  seeking  to  acquire 
wealth  by  winning  it  from  another  rather  than  by  earning  it  through  some 
sort  of  service  to  one's  fellow-men. 

(c)  The  necessity  of  system  and  accuracy  in  accounts,  of  thoroughness 
in  whatever  is  undertaken  and  of  strict  fidelity  in  trusts. 


61 

(d)  Caution  in  contracting  private  debt,  directly  or  by  indorsement,  and 
in  incurring  obligation  of  any  kind;   punctuality  in  payment  of  debt  and  in 
performance  of  engagements.     Abhorrence  of  repudiation  of  debt  by  com- 
munities and  commensurate  abhorrence  of  lavish  or  inconsiderate  incurring 
of  public  debt. 

(e)  The  deep   comfort   and   healthfulness  of  pecuniary  independence, 
whether  the  scale  of  affairs  be  small  or  great.     The  consequent  necessity  of 
careful  scrutiny  of  income  and  outgo,  whether  private  or  public,  and  of  such 
management  as  will  cause  the  first  to  exceed  (even  if  but  slightly)  the  second. 
In  national  affairs  this  applies  not  only  to  the  public  treasury,  but  also  to  the 
mass  of  the  nation,  as  shown  by  the  balance  of  trade. 

(/)  The  necessity  of  rigorously  punishing  by  legal  penalties  and  by 
social  exclusion  those  persons  who  commit  frauds,  betray  trusts  or  steal  public 
funds,  directly  or  indirectly.  The  fatal  consequences  to  a  community  of 
weak  toleration  of  such  offenses  must  be  most  distinctly  pointed  out  and 
enforced. 

(g)  The  fundamental  fact  that  the  United  States  is  a  nation  composed  of 
population  wedded  together  for  life,  with  full  power  to  enforce  internal  obedi- 
ence, and  not  a  loose  bundle  of  incoherent  communities  living  together 
temporarily  without  other  bond  than  the  humor  of  the  moment. 

(h)  The  necessity  for  each  nation  to  care  for  its  own,  and  to  maintain  by 
all  suitable  means  its  industrial  and  financial  independence;  no  apologetic 
or  merely  defensive  style  of  instruction  must  be  tolerated  upon  this  point, 
but  the  right  and  duty  of  national  self-protection  must  be  firmly  asserted  and 
demonstrated. 

The  administration  of  the  school  shall  be  subject  to  the  rules  adopted 
from  time  to  time  by  the  board  of  trustees  for  the  management  of  it  and  of 
analogous  schools  connected  with  the  University  (which  schools  are  designed 
to  be  component  parts  of,  and  to  act  in  strict  harmony  with,  the  general  plan 
of  the  University),  and  it  shall  have  as  full  measure  of  independence  concern- 
ing its  internal  details  and  the  arrangement  of  its  special  lines  of  work  as  may 
in  the  judgment  of  the  trustees  be  consistent  with  the  vigorous  and  successful 
development  of  this  school  and  of  the  University. 

THE  ALUMNI  REGISTER. 

The  leading  article  in  the  May  1913  number  is  Professor  Cheyney's  article 
on  "An  Ideal  of  the  Universities,"  from  which  the  following  abstract  is  made: 

"All  universities  tend  to  fall  into  two  classes,  those  that  are  influenced 
primarily  by  the  past,  and  those  influenced  primarily  by  the  present.  The 
best  examples  of  the  former  are  to  be  found  at  Oxford  and  Cambridge.  .  .  . 

"But  such  an  ideal  costs  its  price.  Oxford  and  Cambridge  are  curiously 
detached  from  English  national  life.  Their  real  influence  in  the  community 
is  extremely  slight.  Except  on  the  part  of  those  who  actually  attend  them 
there  is  but  little  pride  or  interest  in  them  and  still  less  loyalty  to  them.  .  .  . 

"In  seeking  for  a  type  of  universities  whose  predominating  influences  are 
those  of  the  present  rather  than  the  past  the  most  complete  embodiment  of 


62 

this  ideal  is  probably  to  be  found  in  the  great  state  universities  of  our  western 
states.  An  agricultural  school  and  a  little  college  of  liberal  studies,  .  .  . 
this  or  something  like  it  was  the  usual  basis  of  these  institutions.  As  time 
went  on  and  as  the  interests  of  the  community  became  more  diversified,  other 
departments  were  added;  an  engineering  school,  an  affiliated  medical  school 
in  the  nearest  large  city,  a  law  school,  perhaps  a  school  of  forestry  or  of 
architecture  or  of  fine  arts  or  of  journalism,  a  graduate  school  or  a  school  of 
pedagogy.  .  .  .  With  the  increase  of  wealth  and  general  culture,  of  ambi- 
tion and  opportunity,  the  college  proper  increased  in  numbers  and  equipment, 
in  enlightenment  of  teaching  and  interest  of  study  until  in  almost  every  west- 
ern state  institution  it  is  now  the  strongest  department. 

"To  which  of  these  types  of  universities  should  Pennsylvania  belong? 
To  which  does  it  belong?  To  which  must  it  belong?  It  cannot  be  the  insti- 
tution of  a  special  class.  The  5,000  students  whose  names  are  annually 
printed  in  our  catalogue  come  from  all  parts  of  the  country  and  the  world, 
and  from  all  classes  of  society.  The  most  conspicuous  feature  of  the  recent 
conference  of  alumni  societies  in  New  York  was  its  nation-wide  character. 
One  of  the  most  impressive  tables  in  the  annual  catalogue  is  that  of  the  geo- 
graphical distribution  of  students,  and  some  of  the  most  striking  news  items 
in  the  University  publications  are  reports  of  the  actions  of  our  alumni  in  dis- 
tant regions  and  diverse  occupations.  .  .  . 

"  Moreover,  of  every  fifteen  students  who  come  to  the  University  fourteen 
come  for  some  specific  object,  to  one  or  other  of  the  professional  or  technical 
schools,  but  one  comes  for  general  education.  We  must  adjust  our  courses 
to  the  needs  of  these  students  or  they  will  not  come.  We  cannot  set  up  a 
certain  arbitrary  ideal  and  say  to  men  looking  for  something  else  that  they 
must  come  and  submit  themselves  to  this.  .  .  . 

"  Again  it  is  possible  that  the  sincere  acceptance  of  the  task  of  conform- 
ing to  the  higher  ideals  of  our  own  time  might  involve  some  changes  in  our 
curriculum.  We  are  one  of  the  very  last  institutions  in  the  country  to  require 
both  Greek  and  Latin  for  the  degree  of  A.B.  Harvard,  Yale,  Columbia, 
Cornell,  Johns  Hopkins,  all  the  great  state  universities,  all  the  Canadian 
universities,  most  of  the  small  colleges  of  New  England,  the  Middle  States 
and  the  West,  Amherst,  Williams,  Haverford  and  such  colleges,  with  all  the 
women's  colleges,  have  ceased  to  insist  on  both  the  ancient  languages  for  the 
A.B.  degree.  Nor  can  the  most  diligent  inquiry  discover  any  signs  of  a 
reaction  or  return  to  the  old  requirements  of  both  Greek  and  Latin  on  the 
part  of  these  institutions.  There  were  but  twenty-three  graduates  with  the 
degree  of  A.B.  from  our  University  of  5,000  students  last  year,  and  four  of 
these  were  women  from  the  College  Courses  for  Teachers.  .  .  . 

"...  This  question  of  degrees  is  proverbially  a  difficult  one  and  a 
Committee  of  the  College  faculty  is  at  present  engaged  hi  making  a  thor- 
ough study  of  the  whole  question.  But  light  will  certainly  be  thrown  upon  it 
by  deciding  first  what  the  real  ideal  of  the  University  is,  how  far  we  are  try- 
ing to  perpetuate  an  established  body  of  knowledge  and  doctrine,  how  far 
we  are  willing  to  test  our  work  constantly  by  its  adaptability  to  our  own  time 
and  our  own  community. 


63 

"Such  is  at  least  one  ideal  of  a  university, — of  our  own  University.  It 
should  be  a  body  of  men  bound  together  by  a  common  loyalty  to  a  great 
institution  with  all  its  memories  and  all  its  hopes  and  a  great  principle,  that 
of  service  to  the  whole  people;  a  university  that  responds  to  every  thrill  of 
life  in  the  community;  a  university  that  raises  every  public  movement  of 
intellectual  or  scientific  or  social  significance  to  a  higher  level  by  the  force 
of  its  dignity,  its  prestige,  and  the  higher  mental  training,  clearer  insight, 
and  broader  outlook  of  its  alumni,  its  trustees,  its  professors,  and  its 
students. 

"EDWARD  P.  CHETNET,  '83.'! 

(From  The  Alumni  Register,  November,  1913.) 
EDITORIAL,  "THE  PROVOST  OPENS  THE  UNIVERSITY." 

"The  Provost  has  upon  several  occasions  proclaimed  his  faith  in  'an 
old-fashioned  education,'  but  never,  perhaps,  more  earnestly  than  in  his 
opening  address  to  the  students  this  year.  ...  If  we  are  to  accept  popular 
ideas  and  changes  in  our  education,  how  far  are  we  to  go?  .  .  .  Few  will 
deny  that  students  are  far  less  competent  to  decide  what  is  good  for  them 
than  the  college  authorities.  The  student  body,  like  the  world  at  large, 
catches  up  every  new  fad  and  unthinkingly  lusts  for  the  privilege  of  con- 
trolling its  own  destiny." 

In  a  news  note  the  Provost  is  quoted  as  having  said, — 

"The  course  I  would  choose  would  consist  of  four  years  each  of  Latin, 
Greek  and  mathematics;  four  or  three  years  of  English,  German  and  French; 
at  least  a  year  of  chemistry,  physics,  philosophy,  logic."  And  the  reporter 
adds,  "The  rest  of  the  Provost's  ideal  course  was  drowned  in  the  good- 
natured  laughter  of  the  audience,  at  the  task  he  was  outlining  for  his  wished- 
for  bachelor  of  arts.  The  Provost  furthermore  declared  that  he  would  have 
most  of  the  work  in  the  ideal  course  required,  and  give  the  students  little 
chance  to  exercise  a  choice  in  elective  courses." 

Mr.  Adams  in  his  "Student  Letter,"  commenting  on  the  Provost's  ideal 
arts  course,  remarks: 

"Though  not  one-tenth  of  the  Provost's  hearers  were  Arts  men,  and  not 
one-tenth  of  these  could  pride  themselves  on  having  taken  'four  years  of  Latin 
and  four  years  of  Greek  and  four  years  of  Mathematics,'  still  all  were  glad 
to  hear  something  to  offset  the  fact  that  there  is  no  room  in  Logan  Hall  large 
enough  to  hold  the  Freshman  Class  in  the  Wharton  School.". 

(From  The  Alumni  Register,  October,  1914.) 

In  an  article,  "The  Changed  requirements  for  A.B.,"  Professor  ScheUing 
explains  the  reasons  which  led  the  Faculty  of  the  College  to  urge  the  adoption 
of  the  new  curriculum.  Among  other  things,  he  said: 

"In  neither  Harvard,  Yale,  Columbia,  Cornell,  nor  Johns  Hopkins  is  the 
study  of  Greek  demanded  as  a  prerequisite  to  the  B.A.  degree,  and  this  is 


64 

no  new  thing  in  any  of  these  cases,  to  name  no  more.  The  mere  practice  of 
others  is  not  enough  to  justify  an  action  in  itself  inadvisable.  But  why 
should  we  continue  to  send  our  Philadelphia  boys  elsewhere — as  we  have 
been  doing  for  years — when  they  wish  a  liberal  education  because  we  illiber- 
ally refuse  to  be  guided  by  the  accepted  trend  of  our  time?  And,  in  con- 
clusion, may  I  observe  that  the  abolition  of  compulsory  Greek  is  not  the 
abolition  of  Greek?  It  may  be  questioned  whether  Greek  flourishes  less  where 
it  is  not  demanded  of  all  students  in  Arts.  Is  Greek  more  a  dead  language  at 
Harvard  or  Yale  than  at  Princeton  or  Chicago,  in  which  two  latter  colleges 
it  is  still  demanded?  I  leave  such  matters  to  the  statistician,  feeling  assured 
that  education,  like  all  things  else,  must  change  with  the  times;  that  new 
conditions  beget  new  measures,  and  that  the  study  of  Greek,  still  one  of  the 
most  admirable  means  to  true  culture,  will  be  safe  in  the  hand  of  those  who 
teach  it  to  willing  disciples  rather  than  to  those  who  labor  under  the  con- 
straints of  an  obsolete  custom." 

This  is  immediately  followed  by  a  brief  statement  signed  by  the  five 
members  of  the  Committee  of  the  Alumni  on  the  College  to  the  Trustees. 
The  five  men  are  J.  Somers  Smith,  William  S.  Ashbrook,  C.  F.  Gummey, 
Henry  W.  Moore,  and  Thomas  B.  Prichett.  It  contains  the  following: 

"It  seems  to  us  that  a  change  such  as  is  proposed  has  a  certain  retro- 
active effect,  and  in  the  final  decision  of  the  matter  we  would  respectfully 
submit  that  those  already  holding  A.B.  degrees  from  the  University  would 
view  with  regret  any  change  in  the  requirements  for  the  degree  which  would 
make  it  less  distinctive. 

"While  your  committee  feels  that  some  appropriate  degree  might  be 
granted  to  those  students  of  the  college  not  pursuing  all  of  the  so-called 
liberal  studies,  such  a  degree  for  example  as  Litt.B.,  we  desire  to  place  our- 
selves on  record  as  of  the  conviction  that  the  study  of  Latin,  Greek,  Philoso- 
phy and  Mathematics  should  be  required  for  the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts." 

This  again  is  followed  by  a  brief  article  signed  by  Mr.  Ashbrook,  pre- 
ceded by  an  editorial  note, — "This  article  was  written  in  response  to  a  request 
from  the  Editor  as  to  the  reasons  which  had  led  the  Sub-committee  on  Col- 
lege of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society  to  report  (April 
2, 1914)  that  it  would  view  with  regret  any  change  in  the  requirements  for  the 
B.  A.  degree  which  would  make  the  degree  less  distinctive." 

Mr.  Ashbrook  remarks  that  the  classics  at  Pennsylvania  "have  been 
badly  taught,"  points  to  the  fact  that  Greek  is  required  at  Princeton  for  the 
B.A.,  and  quotes  Dean  West  that  the  "classics  form  one  of  the  finest  intel- 
lectual disciplines  known  in  the  history  oft  education."  He  concludes, — 

"There  has  been  a  tendency  perhaps  among  the  alumni  to  lay  too  much 
stress  upon  mere  numbers  as  a  test  of  the  growth  of  our  own  or  any  other 
university.  Too  much  may  be  sacrificed  to  numerical  growth.  A  uni- 
versity ought  to  be  a  '  People's  College '  only  in  the  sense  that  it  affords  the 
people  an  opportunity  to  get  the  best.  Harm  is  done  both  a  university  and 
the  people  when  something  less  than  the  best  is  labeled  'just  as  good.' " 

Under  the  heading  I'The  College"  the  editor  remarks,  "The  editor  was 


65 

struck  with  the  recurrence  of  recorded  losses,  or  perhaps  some  would  prefer 
to  call  them  changes.  The  old  clock  tower  is  gone,  so  is  Greek  from  the 
A.B.  requirements,  and  the  necrology  list  is  unusually  long. 

"We  have  printed  important  contributions  regarding  the  second  of  these 
changes  in  which  'those  who  are  giving  their  lives  to  education'  have  nearly 
united.  .  .  . 

"There  must  be  some  standard,  some  authority,  and  we  think  the  Uni- 
versity should  assume  such  leadership  in  the  best  things  of  life.  The  alumni, 
through  their  officially  organized  committee  on  the  College,  were  not  in  favor 
of  the  change  in  the  requirements  of  the  curriculum,  and  so  reported  to  the 
Trustees.  Perhaps  they  were  wrong,  but  it  is  reasonable  to  think  that  those 
who  are  most  in  touch  with  the  affairs  of  everyday  Life,  for  which  the  Uni- 
versity is  supposed  to  be  educating  its  students,  are  more  or  less  familiar 
with  what  things  serve  a  man  well  in  life.  We  believe  their  opinion,  therefore, 
from  this  point  of  view  as  well  as  with  the  idea  of  recognizing  the  alumni,  is 
entitled  to  serious  consideration." 

In  "Editorial  Comment"  under  the  heading  "Masters"  the  editor  speaks 
of  the  advantages  of  being  a  student  under  famous  teachers,  and  then  says, — 

"We  cannot  praise  too  highly  the  aim  of  the  Provost  to  secure  men  for 
the  faculty  of  distinguished  ability  and  reputation — scholars  and  teachers — 
and  to  urge  upon  the  Trustees  more  strength  in  promptly  casting  out  the  fads 
and  fancies  emanating  from  those  of  immature  and  unproved  attainment 
which  can  only  lower  the  University's  reputation  in  the  world  of  sound 
achievement." 

The  next  editorial  says: 

"We  read  in  the  public  prints  of  the  letting  down  of  the  bars  in  the 
requirements  for  the  University's  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts.  Coming  almost 
immediately  after  the  recommendation  of  our  Committee  on  the  College 
that  these  requirements  be  not  changed,  which  was  understood  to  be  in 
accordance  with  the  wish  of  the  Provost,  we  are  somewhat  surprised  at  this 
popular  concession.  Pennsylvania  A.B.  men  have  been  worthily  proud  of 
a  degree  which  means  something  and  of  the  opportunity  at  our  University 
for  the  training  of  scholars." 


(From  The  Alumni  Register,  November,  1914.) 

In  the  "Student  Letter,"  which  is  signed  by  Casper  W.  B.  Townsend,  '16, 
occurs  this  passage, — 

"Provost  Smith,  in  treating  of  the  new  requirements  for  the  Bachelor 
of  Arts  degree,  urged  that  the  disciplinary  courses  should  not  be  forgotten 
in  the  rush  for  popular  electives.  These  words  were  impressed  upon  the 
minds  of  those  of  his  hearers  who  had  registered  in  the  College  to  such  an 
extent,  that  the  registration  in  the  courses  in  Greek  should  considerably 
increase  this  year,  when  given  as  a  free  elective,  over  last  year,  when  Greek 
was  a  subject  required  for  an  A.B.  degree." 


66 

(From  The  Report  of  the  Sub-committee  on  College  of  the  Board  of  Directors 
of  The  General  Alumni  Society,  dated  March  29,  1915,  and  signed  by 

J.  Somers  Smith,  '87,  Phila.,  Pa. 
Thos.  B.  Prichett,  78,  Phila.,  Pa. 
H.  W.  Moore,  '82,  Phila.,  Pa. 
C.  F.  Gummey,  '84,  Phila.,  Pa. 
William  S.  Ashbrook,  '87,  Phila.,  Pa. 
Chas.  A.  Upson,  '00,  Lockport,  N.  Y. 
Marshall  S.  Morgan,  '04,  Phila.,  Pa 
H.  B.  Heyburn,  '12,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Charles  T.  Murphy,  '94,  Los  Angeles,  Cal.) 

"...  The  Committee  would  suggest  the  possibility  of  retrenchment  by 
the  University  in  some  directions  in  the  matter  of  electives. 

"The  Committee  in  this  suggestion  is  not  attempting  to  pass  upon  the 
advisability  of  any  particular  course,  but  is  merely  urging  consideration  of 
the  general  principle  that  the  strengthening  of  the  more  general  courses  may 
prove  of  greater  advantage  to  the  College  under  present  conditions  than  elec- 
tives not  likely  to  be  generally  chosen." 

(Alumni  Register,  May,  1915.) 

(From  The  Alumni  Register,  December,  1914.) 

Editorial:  "The  Law  School": 

"The  announcement  that  William  E.  Mikell,  Esq.,  has  been  appointed 
Dean  of  the  Law  School,  and  that  the  former  Dean,  Dr.  William  Draper 
Lewis,  has  been  granted  a  year's  leave  of  absence,  marks  the  culmination  of 
an  episode  in  the  Law  School's  history  which  has  greatly  interested  all  Penn- 
sylvania men.  An  element  of  tragedy  discernible  in  the  situation,  serves  but 
to  deepen  the  interest. 

"That  a  man  holding  the  principal  administrative  position  in  a  great 
law  school,  a  position  the  occupancy  of  which  constitutes  him  as  its  representa- 
tive and  spokesman — a  man  of  high  reputation  in  his  profession,  of  distin- 
guished services  to  the  University,  to  which  he  is  tied  by  bonds  born  of  long 
association  and  devoted  attachment — that  such  a  man,  so  situated,  should 
become  the  ardent  and  active  advocate  of  a  political  movement  which  fathers 
radical  changes  in  our  existing  institutions,  especially  alterations  in  judicial 
procedure  of  a  character  repugnant  to  the  legal  profession,  naturally  creates  a 
situation  anomalous  and  full  of  embarrassment.  The  distinguished  national 
leader  of  this  political  movement  has  been  conspicuous  hi  his  attacks  on  the 
courts  in  cases  where  then:  decisions  were  antagonistic  to  his  views,  and  has 
not  hesitated  to  use  his  great  influence  to  undermine  the  authority  of  the 
judiciary,  and  to  weaken  the  respect  in  which  they  are  held.  The  Law 
School  of  the  University  is  a  place  in  which,  to  a  greater  degree  than  else- 
where, the  belief  in  the  sanctity  of  the  courts,  the  traditions  of  Anglo-Saxon 
jurisprudence,  the  appreciation  of  the  immense  importance  of  a  free,  uninflu- 
enced judiciary,  the  respect  and  veneration  for  the  law  and  the  instru- 
mentalities of  the  law,  are  supposed  to  have  their  abiding  place.  To  witness 


67 

the  Dean  of  such  a  school  follow  the  leadership  and  embrace  the  doctrines 
referred  to  is  calculated  to  provoke  feelings  akin  to  dismay. 

"We  hope  that  the  scope  of  our  criticism  will  not  be  misunderstood. 
.  .  .  The  Register  has  recently  stated  its  view  of  the  University's  duty  in 
such  cases.  It  realizes  that  she  must  maintain  a  position  of  dignified  silence. 
It  is  our  hope  that  Dr.  Lewis  may  return  at  the  end  of  his  sabbatical  year, 
so  mentally  and  spiritually  in  tune  with  the  great  traditions  and  the  exalted 
mission  of  his  profession,  that  he  may  sit  on  the  faculty  of  the  Law  School 
as  one  of  its  most  useful  members. 

"...  Our  Law  School  should  inculcate  in  the  minds  of  its  students  a 
spirit  of  respect  for  the  fundamental  principles  that  have  developed  with 
our  social  structure,  and  which  form  the  bases  on  which  it  rests — a  spirit  of 
reverence  for  the  great  charters  of  our  liberties,  and  a  determination,  as 
members  of  that  great  profession  to  which  this  duty  peculiarly  belongs,  to 
defend  and  uphold  these  blessings  against  attacks  of  any  nature.  .  .  ." 

AN  EDITORIAL. 
(From  the  Sacramento  Bee.) 

And  what  a  pitiful  education  these  Trustees  would  seemingly  give  the 
Pennsylvania  youth! 

Of  mathematics  the  young  men  could  drink  deep;  all  the  mysteries  of 
Lathi  and  Greek  could  be  deeply  probed;  the  fullest  details  of  Caesar's 
campaigns  could  be  stored  away;  the  past  could  be  fully  weighed  and  studied. 

But  over  the  good  and  evil  of  our  present  days,  these  men  would  draw 
a  curtain.  The  students  would  be  lulled  to  a  satisfaction  with  things  as 
they  are,  budding  thoughts  of  changes  and  reforms  stifled.  .  .  . 


CHAPTER  V. 
The  Relation  of  Professor  to  Trustee. 

11.    THE  "EMPLOYEE"  IDEA. 

An  editorial  in  the  February,  1914,  number  of  the  Alumni  Register  is 
entitled  "The  Professors'  Union": 

"  The  hysteria  of  forcing  people  to  do  things  has  struck  the  college  pro- 
fessors. There  has  been  much  in  the  public  prints  recently  of  their  forming 
a  'union'  to  force  the  right  of  free  speech  and  to  maintain  the  security  of 
their  positions  under  all  circumstances.  There  is  talk  of  their  cowardice  in 
surrendering  to  the  views  of  trustees  and  rich  benefactors  in  their  teaching. 
Perhaps  the  sympathy  of  the  President,  himself  a  pedagogue  from  our  sister 
University  of  Princeton,  will  be  enlisted  in  order  that  they  may  be  safe- 
guarded from  legal  penalties  along  with  labor  unions  and  farmers'  alliances. 
It  is  a  curious  development  for  those  of  high  education,  rare  culture  and 
sound  minds  to  catch  the  popular  desire  for  the  employed  to  manage  the 
employers,  and  to  attribute  to  distinguished  gentlemen  of  character  and 
ability  qualities  which  are  the  creation  of  the  ordinary  popular  hysteria.  It 
seems  simple  and  elementary  to  believe  that  a  man  should  do  the  things  he 
is  employed  to  do  and  for  which  he  accepts  remuneration.  In  better  times 
men  performed  their  obligations  and  lived  up  to  their  contracts  as  matters 
of  honor.  If  these  become  at  variance  with  their  consciences  they  are  at 
liberty  to  resign.  Our  educators  as  well  as  our  trustees  should  bear  in  mind 
that  they  have  a  solemn  and  serious  responsibility  for  the  training  and  direc- 
tion of  youthful  minds  who  are  to  form  the  ethics  and  politics  and  prosperity 
of  the  Republic. 

"...  The  mania  for  making  laws  to  reform  the  universe  has  been 
unbridled  without  regard  to  the  economic  fallacies  involved  in  the  proposed 
statutes.  Laws  to  regulate  wages  and  the  hours  of  labor  have  disregarded 
the  law  of  supply  and  demand,  and  with  the  attacks  upon  railroads  and  other 
public  service  corporations  have  had  the  opposite  effect  upon  the  high  cost  of 
living  from  what  was  intended.  .  .  .  We  should  look  to  our  seats  of  higher 
learning  to  educate  men  to  meet  these  problems  with  balance  and  a  wisdom 
just  to  all.  Their  solving  is  not  easy  or  superficial  or  quick  and  it  is  a  coura- 
geous thing  for  the  trustees  of  a  university  to  stand  firm  for  sound  thought  and 
a  guarded  education  in  these  crises  as  against  the  whim  of  popular  fancy. 
We  believe  that  the  Trustees  of  this  University  are  so  courageous,  although 
they  have  felt  no  occasion  to  display  it.  After  having  selected  a  man  to  teach 
a  subject  it  is  obvious  that  they  would  not  hamper  him,  and  no  discussion  or 
suggestion  of  any  limitations  in  this  regard  has  ever  been  before  the  Board. 
Ita  members  are  of  proved  attainments,  and  immature  instructors  will  do 

(68) 


69 

well  to  seek  their  advice  in  order  for  their  help  rather  than  assume  an  atti- 
tude of  antagonism  and  infallibility  which  only  makes  them  ridiculous. 

"  It  is  acknowledged  that  many  college  professors  are  underpaid,  although 
their  hours  of  work  in  a  year  and  causes  of  worry  are  less  than  the  average 
worker.  They  are,  however,  in  a  splendid  company  with  the  officers  of  the 
army  and  navy  and  the  legion  of  servants  to  the  altruistic  organizations  of 
our  time.  Boards  of  management  give  them  all  the  money  they  can  get, 
which  is  all  they  can  do,  and  if  they  had  to  leave  the  academic  seclusion  of 
the  class  room  and  go  out  and  meet  the  yearly  deficit  or  hustle  for  a  living, 
they  would  realize  the  difficulties  in  the  way  and  understand  social  and  eco- 
nomic problems  from  a  more  practical  business  viewpoint. 

"  In  business  life  a  man  succeeds  because  he  sticks  to  his  own  job  without 
trying  to  boss  or  instruct  other  work  for  which  he  is  not  particularly  fitted. 
Thus  he  makes  himself  so  valuable  to  his  employers  that  they  cannot  afford 
to  lose  or  hamper  him.  ..." 

In  "Editorial  Comment,"  referring  presumably  to  Professor  Muenster- 
berg,  the  Alumni  Register  for  November,  1914,  says,  under  the  heading 
"  Violating  Neutrality  " : 

"There  has  been  a  stir  in  the  newspapers  about  a  professor  at  Harvard 
University  whose  alleged  violation  of  neutrality  was  the  cause  of  considerable 
objection  among  the  friends  of  that  ancient  seat  of  learning.  The  learned 
man  whose  natural  enthusiasm  was  the  cause  of  this  disturbance  has  wisely 
resigned  from  the  Faculty  and  by  this  evidence  of  delicacy  and  unselfishness 
has  proved  himself  a  gentleman  as  well  as  a  scholar.  We  suppose  every 
college  at  some  tune  suffers  from  the  immature  or  injudicious  utterances  of 
Faculty  members  either  in  public  or  in  the  classroom.  These  are  generally 
caused  by  and  tinged  with  a  conviction  of  infallibility.  Youthful  enthusiasm 
or  scholastic  seclusion  has  not  brought  to  their  equipment  a  varying  and  broad 
experience  in  the  affairs  of  life  necessary  to  poise  and  good  judgment.  Can 
they  not  accept  the  honest  advice  of  men  who  are  familiar  with  existing  con- 
ditions from  first  hand  experience  before  they  wander  from  the  fundamental 
and  established  principles  of  their  subject? 

"Trustees  have  a  very  sacred  trust  to  administer  when  they  accept  the 
confidence  of  parents  that  they  will  select  teachers  who  are  capable  and  sound 
scholars.  It  would  be  very  well  too  if  they  were  always  gentlemen  in  the 
sense  that  the  Harvard  professor  was  one  and  display  the  delicacy  and 
decency  of  withdrawing  rather  than  cause  embarrassment  to  a  great  uni- 
versity." 

This  is  immediately  followed  by  a  long  editorial  on  "Free  Speech  Again." 
It  begins,  "  We  are  glad  to  hear  of  the  promotion  of  Doctors  King  and  Nearing. 
Each  now  becomes  Assistant  Professor,  ascending  from  the  position  of  In- 
structor. This  act  is  the  University's  answer  to  the  agitation  last  winter 
regarding  the  utterances  of  these  gentlemen.  Instead  of  being  discharged 
they  are  promoted.  The  great  principle  of  freedom  of  thought  and  speech 
is  again  confirmed  at  the  University. 

"This  is  quite  as  it  should  be.  ...  A  man's  sense  of  fairness  teaches 
him  that  he  should  not  compromise  the  institution  of  which  he  is  a  part. 


70 

By  employing  him,  the  University  places  her  reputation  in  his  hands.  He 
becomes  in  a  sense  her  spokesman.  The  realization  of  this  fact  should  have 
and  probably  always  have,  a  sobering  influence.  Morally,  the  man  who 
joins  an  institution  thereby  relinquishes  his  right  to  complete  freedom  of 
speech.  If  the  occasion  should  arise  in  which  he  thinks  outright  speech  of  a 
kind  to  embarrass  the  management  of  the  institution,  is  of  greater  importance 
than  his  connection  with  the  institution,  he  should  at  once  resign  his  position 
in  it.  The  responsibility  of  judgment  in  such  a  case  lies  with  him.  His  sense 
of  the  fitness  of  things,  his  tact,  his  intuitions  must  be  depended  on  to  set  the 
limits  to  what  he  may  properly  speak  or  publish  so  long  as  the  relation 
continues. 

"But  the  responsibilities  in  this  connection  do  not  rest  entirely  on  the 
shoulders  of  the  professor  or  instructor;  they  must  be  borne  also  by  the 
University.  She  should  exercise  the  greatest  care  in  selecting  the  men  whom 
she  employs.  Realizing  that  the  great  principle  of  freedom  stands  as  a  bar 
to  the  punishment  or  discharge  of  an  employee  because  of  his  indiscreet 
speech, — that  in  accepting  him  she  takes  him  as  it  were  for  better,  for  worse, — 
she  should,  by  careful  inquiry,  satisfy  herself  that  the  mental  attitude  of  the 
applicant  is  such  that  he  will  not  be  liable  to  assume,  on  controversial  ques- 
tions, a  position  that  will  prove  to  be  embarrassing.  ...  A  great  univer- 
sity, with  catholic  impartiality,  should  provide  facilities  for  the  expounding 
of  every  sort  of  theory  of  government  or  politics.  .  .  .  By  all  means  expound 
the  radical  doctrines,  but  do  it  so  that  they  do  not  over-top  those  of  a  more 
conservative  character.  .  .  ."  "The  established  order  of  society  has  an 
underlying  philosophy,  deeply  grounded  in  human  nature  and  the  constitu- 
tion of  things,  embodying  the  great  principles  of  liberty  and  justice,  of  stabil- 
ity combined  with  healthy  progress,  that  have  developed  with  our  civiliza- 
tion. .  .  .  The  University  cannot  afford  to  maintain  a  school  that  over- 
develops the  radical  tendencies.  She  should  see  that  each  professor  or 
instructor  of  the  radical  type  is  offset  by  one  capable  of  attractively  present- 
ing the  doctrines  and  theories  of  conservatism.7' 


12.    THE  UNIVERSITY:   AN  ASSOCIATION  OF  SCHOLARS.* 

Before  the  discussion  of  Professor  Nearing's  abrupt  dismissal 
from  the  Wharton  School  faculty  is  laid  aside  for  the  summer 
months,  to  be  reopened  in  the  fall  on  the  assembling  of  students  at 
the  University,  and  awaiting  concerted  action  of  professors  at 
this  and  other  universities,  I  would  like  to  state  the  position  of  a 
member  of  the  University  faculty,  so  as  to  hold  it  fast  against 
misrepresentation. 

No  one  asks  that  the  appointment  of  an  instructor  at  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  shall  be  for  life  and  not  subject  to 
removal  by  action  of  the  board  of  trustees.  Any  professor  at  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  can  be  removed  in  about  a  month's 
time,  but  his  removal  may  not  be  proposed  and  acted  upon  at  the 
same  meeting,  and  the  by-laws  of  the  corporation  provide  that 
he  is  entitled  to  know  and  answer  the  causes  assigned  for  his 
removal. 

In  the  case  of  assistant  professors  and  other  instructors, 
however,  the  board  of  trustees  interprets  the  annual  appointment 
so  as  to  give  it  power  to  dismiss  by  the  summary  process  of  failing 
to  appoint,  without  a  statement  of  the  cause. 

Professor  Nearing's  dismissal  took  place  after  many  years 
of  discussion  and  after  he  had  been  advanced  last  year  to  an 
assistant  professorship,  despite  much  hostile  criticism.  The 
abrupt  letter  of  dismissal  was  sent  by  the  board  through  the 
provost  directly  to  Doctor  Nearing  before  any  notification  that 
such  action  had  been  accomplished  or  even  contemplated  was 
conveyed  to  the  dean  or  the  faculty,  which  had  unanimously 
recommended  his  reappointment.  Whatever  the  causes  of  this 
action  may  have  been,  this  exercise  of  arbitrary  power  by  the 
board  of  trustees  has  the  effect  of  a  vote  of  lack  of  confidence  in 
the  Wharton  School  faculty,  of  which  Provost  Smith  himself  is 
a  member. 

Appointment  to  an  office  of  instruction  at  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania  does  not  make  the  instructor  a  personal  employee  of 
the  trustees  nor  is  the  instructor  in  the  pay  of  the  board.  Trus- 

*  The  Public  Ledger  and  the  North  American,  7/3/15. 

(71) 


72 

teeship,  in  contradistinction  to  private  ownership,  constitutes  the 
board  of  trustees  a  "social  agency,"  through  which  state  and 
private  philanthropy  maintain  a  group  of  learned  men  to  investi- 
gate facts,  to  arrive  at  opinions,  to  teach  and  to  bring  forth  the 
results  of  their  researches  for  the  benefit  of  society. 

The  instructor  says  "thank  you"  to  the  board  of  trustees 
for  his  salary  in  the  same  spirit  of  courtesy  with  which  he  thanks 
the  teller  of  the  bank  who  cashes  his  check  or  the  postman  who 
hands  him  a  letter.  For  this  reason  certain  members  of  the 
Wharton  School  faculty  were  persuaded  not  to  resign,  but  rather 
to  contest  as  a  public  duty  the  action  of  the  board  of  trustees  in 
refusing  to  approve  their  recommendation  of  a  candidate  for 
office  without  assigning  any  cause  for  such  refusal.  Whether  the 
cause  be  finally  stated  or  not,  in  this  and  all  other  cases  of  serious 
dispute  between  trustees  and  a  faculty  over  an  appointment,  an 
appeal  can  properly  be  brought  before  the  court  of  public  opinion, 
or  directed  to  the  governor  of  the  state,  who  is  president  of  the 
board  of  trustees. 

In  the  words  of  Governor  Brumbaugh's  inaugural  address 
— "Surely  the  supervision  of  the  state  should  follow  absolutely 
its  gifts.  The  state  can  afford  to  be  generous  only  when  it  is 
just." 

It  must  be  admitted  that  the  position  of  the  trustees  in  the 
face  of  conflicting  opinion  is  often  a  difficult  one.  It  is  never 
pleasant  to  be  on  the  firing  line,  and  trustees  are  doubtless  too 
often  disturbed  by  just  and  unjust  complaints  of  the  sayings  and 
doings  of  instructors,  for  some  people  think  it  their  duty  to  write 
personal  letters  to  members  of  the  board  whenever  they  happen 
to  see  even  a  dirty  window.  Nevertheless  it  should  be  considered 
a  special  privilege  of  the  board  of  trustees  to  be  on  the  firing  line 
hi  defense  of  our  institution. 

It  has  always  been  the  high  privilege  of  the  learned  pro- 
fession to  brave  special  interests  and  even  at  times  the  "ethical 
sense  of  the  community."  At  one  period  in  history  it  was  a 
difference  of  religious  opinion  which  constituted  the  firing  line. 
"The  first  really  modern  university,"  to  quote  the  words  of  a 
historian  of  education,  "was  created  because  a  professor  sought 
to  free  education  from  sectarian  influence  and  control,  and  was 
driven  in  consequence  from  the  University  of  Leipsic.  Although 


75 

in  peril  of  his  life  during  the  religious  wars  of  Germany,  Thomasius 
told  the  few  students  who  would  listen  to  him,  "I  now  see  that 
any  being  gifted  by  God  with  reason  sins  against  the  kindness  of 
his  Creator  when  he  allows  himself  to  be  led  like  an  ox  by  any 
other  human  being."  A  Prussian  king,  such  is  the  irony  of  his- 
tory, then  asked  Thomasius  to  organize  the  University  of  Halle, 
derided  by  the  religious  fanatics  of  the  tune  as  "the  University 
of  Hell." 

An  instructor  of  mathematics  can  now  teach  his  subject 
without  exciting  the  hostile  criticisms  of  political,  social  or  sec- 
tarian convictions.  At  various  times  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
now  one  subject,  and  now  another  becomes  the  target  of  acrimo- 
nious discussion.  Today  it  is  sociology  and  political  economy 
which  put  their  representatives  on  the  firing  line  of  conflicting 
interests. 

The  traditions  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  identify  our 
Alma  Mater  with  honorable  victories  won  for  freedom  of  opinion 
and  expression.  I  would  have  every  loyal  Pennsylvania  man 
read  Mr.  Choate's  tribute  to  the  heroic  figure  of  our  founder, 
Benjamin  Franklin,  as  he  stood  in  the  cockpit  of  the  privy  council, 
protesting  against  the  arbitrary  power  of  the  British  government. 
Although  an  employe  of  that  government,  he  nevertheless 
represented  the  conflicting  interests  of  the  American  colonies, 
and  in  consequence,  was  summarily  dismissed  from  his  office 
of  deputy  postmaster  general.  His  bearing  on  that  occasion 
succeeded,  such  is  Mr.  Choate's  opinion,  in  "casting  into  the 
shade  of  oblivion  all  those  who  joined  in  the  assault  upon  him." 
f  Another  example  for  our  students  and  alumni  was  the  first 
provost  of  the  College  and  Academy  of  Philadelphia,  who  was 
called  before  the  bar  of  the  house  of  assembly,  charged  with  aiding 
and  promoting  the  writing  and  publishing  of  a  libel;  convicted 
thereof,  and  sentenced  to  the  Walnut  Street  Jail.  To  show  that 
revolt  against  the  arbitrary  power  of  partisanship  and  sectarian- 
ism is  indeed  the  "Pennsylvania"  spirit,  I  quote  this  entry  from 
the  minute  book  of  the  board  of  trustees,  under  date  of  February 
4,  1758,  following  Provost  Smith's  incarceration : 

"The  Assembly  of  the  Province,  having  taken  Mr.  Smith  into 
custody,  the  trustees  considered  how  the  inconvenience  from 
thence  arising  to  the  college  might  best  be  remedied;  and  Mr, 


Smith  having  expressed  a  desire  to  continue  his  lectures  to  the 
classes  which  had  formerly  attended  them,  the  students  also 
inclining  rather  to  proceed  in  their  studies  under  his  care,  they 
ordered  that  said  classes  should  attend  him  for  that  purpose  at 
the  usual  hours  in  the  place  of  his  present  confinement." 

As  the  opposing  forces  of  academic  freedom  and  reaction 
align  themselves  for  the  prolonged  battle  of  which  the  present 
issue  is  only  the  opening  skirmish,  we  would  like  to  see  our  pro- 
vost take  his  stand  on  the  firing  line  with  his  colleagues.  He  is 
one  of  us,  a  professor  of  chemistry,  a  man  of  science  of  the  first 
distinction,  a  member  of  the  very  faculty  whom  the  board  of 
trustees  insulted  by  their  action.  Although  he  is  provost,  he  is 
not  a  member  of  the  board  of  trustees,  and  while  he  may  not 
inform  us  of  the  board's  position,  he  is  free  at  least  to  state  his 
own  convictions.  He  is  not  the  attorney  of  the  board  of  trustees; 
he  represents  the  faculty  before  the  trustees  just  as  Franklin, 
although  an  appointee  of  the  British  government,  represented  the 
American  people  before  the  privy  council  in  England.  The  very 
charter  of  the  University  expresses  this  representative  character 
of  the  provost's  office  in  the  following  words: 

"The  provost  and  vice-provost,  or  the  principal  officer  or 
officers  of  the  faculty,  by  whatever  name  or  names  they  may 
be  called,  shall  be  chosen  from  among  the  professors  so  appointed." 

Whatever  stand  Doctor  Smith  may  take,  we  know  that  his 
action  will  be  inspired  by  his  love  for  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania, and  by  his  high  sense  of  personal  responsibility.  If  the 
integrity  of  the  University  is  really  threatened  by  the  arbitrary 
power  of  special  interests,  as  report  would  have  it,  should  the 
loyalty  of  our  provost,  who  represents  the  profession  of  learning 
and  teaching,  go  to  its  board  of  trustees  and  not  rather  to  the 
ideals  of  truth,  freedom,  and  justice  on  which  the  institution  was 
founded?  And  where  do  our  alumni  stand?  Can  loyalty  to  Alma 
Mater  support  a  board  of  directors  of  the  general  alumni  society, 
who  undertook  through  the  "Alumni  Register"  a  campaign  of 
contempt  and  disparagement  toward  professors  as  a  class? 


CHAPTER  VI. 
Alumni  Support  of  the  Board  of  Trustees. 

13.   "WE  THE  ALUMNL" 

(From  the  Philadelphia  Inquirer,  6/18/15.) 

Mr.  Nearing  has  been  the  leader  of  a  group  of  professors  who  have  been 
accused  of  socialistic  teachings.  Friends  of  these  professors  charged  the 
existence  of  a  plot  to  block  their  advancement  in  place  and  salary  as  cus- 
tomary with  all  other  instructors  in  the  institution.  About  six  months  ago 
it  was  announced  that  a  committee  of  the  trustees  had  taken  up  the  subject 
of  the  limitation  of  the  liberties  of  speech  of  its  professors  and  investigation 
of  the  proper  relations  of  teachers.  The  opposition  took  the  most  concen- 
trated public  form  at  the  General  Alumni  Society  meeting  at  what  was  called 
the  first  alumni  day  in  April,  when  a  committee  headed  by  Thomas  S.  Gates 
suggested  as  follows: 

"The  committee  takes  this  occasion  to  place  itself  on  record  as  squarely 
opposed  to  the  use  of  the  fair  name  of  the  University  as  a  point  of  vantage 
for  utterances  foreign  to  the  scheme  of  its  teaching  and  ideals  in  education, 
and  recommends  that  where  such  members  of  the  teaching  staff  are  not  will- 
ing to  subscribe  to  its  policies  their  services  should  be  dispensed  with." 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/19/15.) 
ALUMNI  SOCIETY  AGAINST  RADICALS. 

It  was  suggested  that  the  action  of  the  board  of  trustees  may  have  been 
due,  in  part,  to  the  report  of  the  committee  of  the  General  Alumni  Society  on 
the  Wharton  School. 

Many  officers  of  the  society  are  known  to  have  been  displeased  with  some 
of  Doctor  Nearing' s  utterances,  and  his  dismissal  ia  believed  to  meet  with 
their  satisfaction. 

Murdoch  Kendrick,  a  director  of  the  society,  in  a  statement  to  the 
PUBLIC  LEDGER  said: 

"I  don't  know  whether  or  not  Mr.  Nearing  discontinued  his  relation  with 
the  University  voluntarily  or  involuntarily.  But  I  am  glad  that  his  official 
relation  has  been  terminated. 

"  I  believe  fully  in  the  right  of  free  speech  for  every  individual,  but  thia 
should  be  limited  when  a  person  is  in  any  representative  position. 

"  No  one  would  have  been  interested  in  Mr.  Nearing's  personal  views  if 
he  had  not  been  connected  with  the  University.  He  should  have  limited  the 
expression  of  his  views,  so  that  the  University  he  represented  would  under 
no  circumstances  be  held  responsible  for  them. 

"Mr.  Bryan  is  the  most  recent  and  forceful  example  of  those  who  main- 
tain that  the  right  of  free  speech  should  never  be  abridged." 

(75) 


76 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/23/15.) 
Special  Telegram  to  Public  Ledger. 

NEW  YORK,  June  22. 

Some  of  the  leading  University  of  Pennsylvania  alumni  in  this  city  do 
not  appear  eager  to  enlist  in  a  movement  for  Prof.  Scott  Nearing's  rein- 
statement. 

"You  may  be  assured  that  the  trustees  had  a  good  reason  for  dismissing 
Nearing,"  said  William  A.  Redding,  president  of  the  General  Alumni  Society 
of  the  University  and  president  of  the  New  York  Alumni  Association. 

"I  am  in  favor  of  freedom  of  speech  but  not  license,"  he  continued. 
"At  Philadelphia,  as  in  every  other  university,  we  find  two  factions  on  this 
question.  The  radical  minority  would  say  to  our  six  hundred  professors  and 
instructors:  'Speak  out, — say  anything  you  like — express  your  own  opinions 
on  all  questions  regardless  of  what  the  university  stands  for.'  That's  one 
view.  More  conservative  men  like  myself  would  say:  'Yes,  speak  freely 
about  questions  of  the  time  which  pertain  to  the  subjects  you  teach  but 
don't  go  out  of  your  way  to  engage  in  controversial  matters  wholly  outside 
of  university  affairs.'  That  is  freedom  of  speech  without  license. 

"It  is  very  clear  in  my  mind  that  there  must  be  some  limitation  to  the 
freedom  granted  to  instructors,  particularly  if  they  are  expressing  opinions 
on  fundamentals  of  religion  or  morality." 

William  Guggenheim,  of  Guggenheim  &  Co.,  treasurer  of  the  local  Penn- 
sylvania Club,  said  that  he  would  prefer  to  reserve  comment  until  all  the 
facts  were  before  him. 

"This  is  the  principle  at  stake,"  he  explained.  "Can  the  trustees  of  a 
university  exercise  any  control  over  professors  and  instructors  hi  the  matter 
of  free  speech?  I  should  say  at  once,  on  general  principles,  that  of  course 
they  can.  If,  hi  their  judgment,  certain  utterances  are  harmful  to  the  institu- 
tion, then  it  is  their  duty  to  dismiss  the  man  who  made  those  utterances.  The 
trustees  are  liable  to  be  the  best  judges  of  what  is  best  for  the  university." 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  6/25/15.) 

The  Alumni  Register,  in  its  June  number,  issued  yesterday,  also  refers 
to  the  Nearing  case,  but  not  by  name,  and  expresses  confidence  in  the  trustees. 
The  Alumni  Register  quotes  from  the  New  Republic,  which  it  says  is  published 
by  "a  few  ardent  young  men  in  New  York."  The  Register  adds: 

"  It  has  a  catchy  name  and  is  filled  with  radiant  phrases,  but  it  is  so  new 
that  it  has  not  learned  as  yet  of  the  passing  of  the  muckraker  and  the  doc- 
trinaire. In  the  issue  of  May  22,  1915,  there  is  an  attack  upon  the  trustees 
of  the  University  couched  in  the  well-known  language  of  this  rhetorical  class. 
All  the  catch  phrases  are  there — 'plutocracy,'  'freedom  of  speech,'  'ruling 
class,'  'the  whole  people'  and  the  rest.  After  declaring  that  their  honesty 
is  not  to  be  impugned  or  their  technical  capacity  denied,  the  editorial  thus 
described  the  institution  which  the  men  it  criticises  have  created:  'The 
University  of  Pennsylvania  has  made  rapid  progress  in  the  last  generation. 
.  .  .  It  has  improved  its  curriculum,  liberalized  its  teaching,  and  in  a  moral 


77 

as  well  as  in  a  material  sense  placed  itself  among  the  leading  universities  of 
America.'  " 

The  Register  then  makes  this  comment: 

"The  alumni  can  rest  assured  that  the  gentlemen  who  have  accom- 
plished this  happy  achievement  can  be  trusted  to  further  distinction.  They 
can  even  be  encouraged  by  our  help  and  confidence." 

(From  the  North  American,  7/3/15.) 

The  following  statement,  regarding  the  dismissal  of  Doctor  Nearing,  was 
issued  yesterday  by  some  members  of  the  General  Alumni  Society: 

"The  Nearing  case  has  been  so  presented  to  the  public  as  to  appear  to 
be  a  case  involving  the  right  of  a  University  teacher  to  free  speech.  Freedom 
of  speech,  however,  is  not  the  real  issue  in  this  case.  The  question  is  one 
of  Doctor  Nearing's  personal  fitness  for  the  position  he  occupied. 

"  The  right  to  freedom  of  speech,  restrained  by  common  sense  and  com- 
mon decency  is  a  right  to  be  cherished,  and  is  a  right  that  has  never  been 
trenched  upon  or  abridged  by  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  There  are 
certain  recognized  limitations  of  this  right;  we  know  of  no  better  statement 
of  them  than  that  made  by  Professor  Schelling  in  his  recent  commencement 
address  at  the  University: 

"  'In  this  right  of  independent  thought  and  liberty  of  speech  there  inheres 
in  the  case  of  the  teacher  also  a  similar  obligation  to  that  which  limits  all 
freedom;  the  obligation  that  that  freedom  be  exercised  in  absolute  regard  for 
the  rights  of  other  men.  If,  then,  it  shall  be  the  high  calling  of  any  one  of 
you  to  teach,  to  give  to  others  knowledge  out  of  the  fulness  of  your  own,  do 
not  carry  on  your  further  education  in  your  classroom,  trying  experimental 
ideas  on  those  who  have  as  yet  no  critical  basis  by  which  to  test  the  efficacy 
of  your  thought.  Do  not  seek  repute  by  astonishing,  untested  theories  which 
may  attract  attention  peradventure  as  much  to  your  precipitancy  as  to  your 
ignorance.  ...  It  is  not  among  the  privileges  of  the  teacher  to  be  banal 
or  vulgar.' 

"The  rules  which  Professor  Schelling  so  stated  were  clearly  violated  in 
and  out  of  the  University  by  Doctor  Nearing,  whose  intemperate,  persistent 
and  astonishing  expressions  of  untested  theories,  and  whose  unrestrained 
condemnations  of  institutions  and  rules  which  form  the  basis  of  civilized 
society,  passed  the  most  generous  bounds  of  free  speech  allowed  by  any  insti- 
tution, and  gamed  for  Doctor  Nearing  a  notoriety  and  a  discredit  which 
reflected  upon  the  University.  The  alumni  could  not  fail  to  perceive  this 
situation  and  many  of  them  have  thought  the  trustees  were  slow  hi  severing 
a  connection  that  subjected  the  University  to  continual  criticism. 

"  At  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society, 
held  on  April  9th,  a  report  of  the  committee  on  the  Wharton  School  was 
unanimously  approved  and  sent  to  the  trustees  of  the  University.  This  report 
contained  the  following  statement: 

" '  To  the  admirable  and  efficient  administration  of  the  dean  of  the 
department  there  is,  however,  one  discordant  note,  viz.,  the  tendency  on  the 


78 

part  of  a  certain  element  in  the  teaching  staff  to  seek  publicity  by  discussions 
of  various  public  topics  in  a  manner  which  is  likely  to  arouse  class  prejudice 
and  fallacious  conclusions  based  upon  a  biased  attitude  of  mind,  and  often 
an  imperfect  representation  of  the  facts.  Such  public  utterances,  coming,  as 
they  do,  under  the  cloak  of  the  authority  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
have  subjected  the  institution,  and  particularly  the  department  from  which 
they  emanate,  to  severe  and  just  criticism.  The  committee  has  noticed, 
moreover,  a  tendency  to  carry  these  impressions  into  the  classroom  by  cer- 
tain inquisitorial  examinations  into  the  social  conditions  surrounding  the 
homes  and  families  of  the  students.' 

"The  board  of  trustees  is  charged  with  the  ultimate  responsibility  of 
determining  the  personal  fitness  of  the  members  of  the  teaching  staff,  and 
only  by  a  wise  and  courageous  exercise  of  their  responsibility  can  the  dignity, 
usefulness  and  sound  standards  of  scholarship  of  the  University  be  maintained. 

"The  character  and  standing  of  the  board  of  trustees,  as  well  as  the 
known  divergence  of  views  among  them  on  economic  questions,  are  a  suffi- 
cient guarantee  that  in  their  action,  with  regard  to  Doctor  Nearing,  they  were 
not  responsive  to  any  pressure  from  any  class  or  kind  of  outside  interest. 

"In  dispensing  with  Dortor  Nearing's  services,  we  believe  that  the 
trustees  have  expressed  and  given  effect  to  the  judgment  of  a  large  majority 
of  the  members  of  the  University  faculties,  of  the  students  and  of  the  alumni." 

This  is  signed  by — 

George  Quintard  Horwitz,  '86  C.,  '88  L.        F.  Warren  Marshall,  '05  C. 
William  Campbell  Posey,  '86  C.,  '91  M.      William  Brown,  Jr.,  '03  L. 

T.  Truxtun  Hare,  '01  C.,  '04  L.  J.  Warren  Coulston,  '90  C. 

Murdoch  Kendrick,  '93  C.,  '96  L.  John  Cadwalader,  Jr.,  '93  C. 

Adolph  G.  Rosengarten,  '92  C. '  Frank  S.  Evans,  Jr.,  '01  C. 

Charles  L.  McKeehan,  '97  C.,  '00  L.  Edward  Ilsley,  '85  C. 

Owen  J.  Roberts,  '97  C.,  '00  L.  Walter  Rowland,  '91  C. 

Henry  W.  Moore.  James  Starr,  '91  C. 

Isaac  A.  Pennypacker,  '02  C.,  '08  L.  G.  Herbert  Taylor,  '95  C. 

Charles  Sinkler,  '93  C.,  '96  L.  George  C.  Stout,  '91  M. 

Frank  Smith.  Carl  N.  Martin,  '96  C. 

Thomas  B.  Prichett,  '78  C.  Ryland  W.  Greene,  '92  C. 

John  Arthur  Brown,  '05  C.  C.  R.  Maguire. 

Robert  T.  McCracken,  '04  C.  J.  C.  Murtagh,  '04  C. 

W.  Hobart  Porter,  '04  C.  Garrett  A.  Brownback,  '08  C, 

John  Blakely,  '95  C.  W.  W.  Montgomery,  Jr.,  '98 
W.  Griffen  Gribbel,  '04  C. 

(From  the  Public  Ledger,  7/9/15.) 
To  the  Editor  of  Public  Ledger: 

SIR — A  few  days  ago  there  appeared  in  your  columns  a  statement  from 
certain  alumni  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  approving  the  action  of  the 
board  of  trustees  in  eliminating  Dr.  Nearing  from  the  faculty  of  the  Wharton 
School.  As  the  ideas  expressed  do  not  in  the  least  agree  with  the  sentiment 


79 

of  many  other  alumni  of  my  acquaintance  it  seems  quite  possible  that  only 
a  very  limited  Philadelphia  coterie  is  represented  by  this  document,  and  not 
the  graduates  of  Pennsylvania  in  general.  What  I  have  heard  about  the  cir- 
culation of  this  statement  for  signatures  leads  me  further  to  the  belief  that 
the  prime  mover,  if  not  the  originator,  is  Mr.  Isaac  A.  Pennypacker,  the  same 
gentleman  who  for  some  time  past  has  been  conducting  a  vigorous  campaign 
against  several  progressive  teachers  of  the  University  through  the  medium 
of  The  Alumni  Register.  Mr.  Pennypacker  is  nephew  to  one  of  the  trustees, 
is  active  in  organization  politics  and  first  appeared  in  public  print  in  ardent 
opposition  to  those  denouncing  the  State  Capitol  scandal  when  that  malodor- 
ous affair  was  of  nation-wide  comment. 

On  going  through  the  list  of  these  thirty-two  signers  of  the  statement, 
I  find  that  fully  nineteen  are  lawyers,  four  of  these  being  from  the  office  of 
Mr.  Owen  Roberts,  formerly  the  appointee  of  John  Weaver;  four  are  in  the 
banking  and  brokerage  business;  two  have  their  main  interests  in  coal;  one 
in  supplies  for  the  coal  companies,  one  in  supplies  for  our  gas  company,  and 
one  more  is  in  the  employ  of  a  public  service  corporation.  This  leaves  but 
four  whose  business  affiliations  would  not  obviously  tend  to  make  them 
hostile  to  any  one  who  attacked  modern  economic  conditions. 

The  public  has  shown  considerable  doubt  as  to  the  disinterestedness  of 
the  trustees  in  ignoring  the  unanimous  recommendation  of  the  Wharton 
School  faculty  in  favor  of  Dr.  Nearing;  as  an  alumnus  I  am  eager  not  to  share 
in  this  doubt,  but  their  refusal  to  explain  their  action  makes  it  very  difficult, 
and  the  support  of  these  alumni  makes  it  almost  impossible. 

L.  B.  HOLLAND,  1902  C. 
Philadelphia,  July  7,  1916. 


14.    THE  SUPPORTING  ALUMNI.* 

"We,  the  alumni/'  33  of  them,  have  signed  the 
following  statement:  "In  dispensing  with  Doctor  Near- 
ing's  services  we  believe  that  the  trustees  have  expressed 
and  given  effect  to  the  judgment  of  a  large  majority  of 
the  members  of  the  University  faculties,  of  the  students 
and  of  the  alumni." 

As  the  alumni  of  the  University  number  20,000,  the  33 
signers  constitute  16  hundredths  of  one  per  cent  of  the  alumni. 
Of  these  33  signers,  seven  are  on  the  board  of  directors  of  the 
General  Alumni  Society,  which  conducted  the  campaign  to  bring 
professors  as  a  class  into  public  disrepute  and  issued  the  report 
culminating  in  Doctor  Hearing's  abrupt  dismissal  by  the  board 
of  trustees.  Of  the  26  alumni  who  are  not  thus  indorsing  them- 
selves, four  are  in  a  single  firm  of  corporation  lawyers  more  or 
less  closely  affiliated  with  a  corporation  lawyer  on  the  board  of 
trustees.  If  we  eliminate  from  the  26  all  those  constituting  an 
interlocking  group  of  corporation  attorneys,  relatives  of  trustees 
and  "Mask  and  Wiggers,"  there  remain  five  or  six  whose  associa- 
tions are  unknown  to  me,  constituting  3  hundredths  of  one  per 
cent  of  the  alumni,  which  latter  figure  may  be  taken  for  the 
moment  to  represent  the  weight  of  personally  disinterested 
alumni  opinion  supporting  the  board  of  trustees  in  their  recent 
action. 

The  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society  and 
the  several  committees  organized  and  appointed  under  the  direc- 
tion of  this  board  comprise  77  persons.  Of  these,  seven  are  sign- 
ers of  the  statement  quoted  above  and  70  have  failed  to  sign. 
After  several  weeks  of  discussion,  10  per  cent  of  the  officials  of 
the  General  Alumni  Society  publicly  support  the  action  of  its 
board  of  directors  and  90  per  cent  do  not. 

From  these  statistics  the  public  may  judge  how  much  truth 
there  is  in  the  statement  of  the  33  signers  that  the  recent  action 
of  the  board  of  trustees  expressed  and  gave  effect  to  the  judgment 

*  The  Public  Ledger  and  the  North  American,  7/8/15. 

(80) 


81 

of  "a  large  majority  of  the  alumni."  As  to  the  faculty,  I  believe 
the  public  now  has  the  right  to  ask  just  how  many  "members  of 
the  University  faculties"  are  known  to  support  their  statement. 
I  do  not  know  a  professor  or  other  instructor  in  the  college  faculty 
who  does  not  resent  the  recent  action  of  the  board  of  trustees, 
and  I  do  not  except  Professor  Schelling,  from  whose  commence- 
ment day  oration  an  excerpt  was  taken  to  give  a  false  color  of 
support  to  the  personal  opinions  of  the  33  signers. 

I  have  heard  a  member  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Gen- 
eral Alumni  Society  assert  the  right  to  eradicate  from  the  Uni- 
versity all  opinions  on  economic,  legal  and  social  topics  considered 
heretical  by  the  directors.  The  board  of  directors  of  the  General 
Alumni  Society  do  not  take  kindly  to  the  thought  that  a  deter- 
mined minority  will  often  seize  an  organization  and  then  proceed 
to  misrepresent  the  general  group  of  which  they  are  but  a  small 
part. 

,  With  kindly  condescension,  I  was  recently  told  that  my 
attitude  on  the  Nearing  question  is  due  to  my  intellectual  limi- 
tations as  a  schoolmaster.  I  suspect,  however,  it  is  not  the  limi- 
tations of  schoolmasters  which  offend,  but  the  growing  recognition 
of  the  value  of  their  services  to  the  public,  for  as  a  corporation 
attorney  and  trustee  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  once  so 
justly  said,  "We  have  arrived  at  the  opinion  that  professors  are 
the  most  dangerous  class  in  the  community."  A  schoolmaster  is 
now  President  of  the  United  States  and  another  schoolmaster  is 
Governor  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania.  An  ex-President 
of  the  United  States  is  now  performing  the  functions  of  a  school- 
master at  Yale  University.  Schoolmasters  appear  to  be  sup- 
planting lawyers  in  the  ranks  of  statesmen.  The  anti-social 
attitude  of  some  members  of  the  legal  profession  is  not  only 
subjecting  the  entire  profession  to  unmerited  criticism,  but  is 
acting  upon  the  minds  of  students,  to  deter  them  from  entering 
the  profession  of  law.  The  last  report  of  the  Carnegie  Foundation 
shows  that  whereas  the  population  has  increased  21  per  cent 
during  the  decade  1900-1910  and  while  the  professions  of  medicine 
and  the  ministry  have  increased  by  about  20  per  cent,  the  legal 
profession  has  been  increased  during  the  same  period  by  only 
6.7  per  cent.  If  some  corporation  attorneys  justly  represent  the 
fixed  opinion  of  corporation  attorneys  as  a  class,  then  we  "pro- 


82 

lessors  as  a  class"  hail  "corporation  lawyers"  as  the  common 
enemy,  the  most  serious  menace  to  intellectural  liberty  and 
the  social  welfare  of  this  country  today. 

When  all  the  cards  are  laid  on  the  table  and  the  game  is  won 
by  the  loyal  alumni  and  others,  who  will  rally  to  the  support  of 
academic  freedom  at  their  Alma  Mater,  a  tablet  should  be  erected 
on  the  campus  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  upon  which  may 
be  inscribed: 

HIC  JACET 

IGNORANCE 

STUPIDITY 

INTOLERANCE 

Which  Alma  Mater  could  not  eradicate  from  the  hearts 
and  minds  of  some  of  her  sons,  so  that  they  once  turned 
upon  her,  and  threatened  to  destroy  her. 
Erected  by  loyal  Alumni  to  bear  witness  hi  the  sight  of 
students  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  that  Toler- 
ance of  opinion  and  speech,  Truth  and  Justice,  are  the 
foundations  upon  which  we  have  built  and  will  maintain 
this  institution  of  Learning  and  Teaching. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
The  Alumni  Register  Campaign. 

15.    A  SALARY  QUESTION. 

(From  the  Philadelphia  Inquirer,  7/18/15.) 

Criticisms  of  the  action  taken  by  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  in 
liberating  Dr.  Scott  Nearing,  of  the  Wharton  School,  at  the  end  of  his  contract 
with  the  University,  were  replied  to  yesterday  hi  part  by  John  C.  Bell,  former 
Attorney  General  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  and  a  present  member  of  the 
University's  Board  of  Trustees. 

For  some  time  past  it  has  been  reported  that  the  Board  of  Trustees,  at 
the  end  of  Dr.  Nearing's  tenure,  had  arranged  to  allow  him  a  year's  extra 
salary  at  the  time  of  his  leaving  the  institution.  Mr.  Bell  admitted  yesterday 
that  this  was  so,  and  when  pressed  acknowledged  that  a  resolution  to  that 
effect  had  been  introduced  by  himself  at  the  board  meeting,  at  which  action 
was  finally  taken  upon  the  Nearing  case. 

"It  is  true,"  said  Mr.  Bell,  "that  the  resolution  was  introduced  at  the 
meeting,  and  that  it  was  introduced  by  me.  It  met,  however,  with  opposition 
from  Board  elements  friendly  to  Dr  Nearing,  upon  the  plea  that  to  offer  him 
money  would  be  to  convey  an  insult. 

"The  resolution,  then,  was,  of  course,  withdrawn.  But  the  Provost  of 
the  University  was  authorized  to  pay  Dr.  Nearing  the  additional  year's 
salary." 

Mr.  Bell  declined  to  say  who  among  the  board  members  opposed  his  idea; 
belief  is  general,  however,  that  the  objection  came  from  Wharton  Barker, 
former  Populist  candidate  for  President. 

Feeling  that  the  University  had  justified  its  moral  action  toward  Dr. 
Nearing  prevailed  yesterday  among  alumni  of  the  University  when  the  fact 
became  known.  It  was  held  that  the  University  had  always  been  witnin  its 
strict  legal  rights  in  terminating  the  contract  and  that  the  "moral  question" 
of  dismissing  Dr.  Nearing  at  the  end  of  the  college  year,  with  possible  un- 
employment confronting  him,  had  amply  been  taken  care  of  by  the  offer  of 
extra  salary. 

Isaac  W.  Pennypacker,  an  attorney  and  an  officer  of  the  society,  said, 
in  effect: 

"While  I  had  no  definite  knowledge  of  the  University's  action,  I  had  been 
led  to  believe  that  Dr.  Nearing  would  not  have  been  dismissed  in  the  abrupt 
fashion  accredited  to  the  institution.  No  criticism  of  Dr.  Nearing  came  from 
the  University,  and  there  was  no  intention  of  treating  him  with  harshness, 
even  if  it  had  been  felt  there  was  occasion  for  it.  I  think  the  University's 
position  has  been  in  many  ways  misunderstood. 

(83) 


84 

"The  'campaign  of  contempt'  against  professors  charged  to  it,  in  my 
opinion,  is  unjust,  and  persons  who  have  fluctuated  between  the  legal  and  the 
'moral'  phases  of  Dr.  Nearing's  case  have  alike  been  guilty  of  hasty  judgment. 
The  law  in  the  matter  has  already  been  explained  by  Mr.  Bell,  and  the 
University's  moral  duty  has,  in  the  minds  of  many  perfectly  sincere  persons, 
been  discharged  by  this  offer  to  Dr.  N  earing — to  provide  him  with  means  to 
tide  over  any  lapse  between  University  engagements." 

With  the  caption,  "Report  of  the  Directors  of  the  Alumni  to  the  Trustees 
of  the  University,"  in  the  May,  1915,  issue  of  the  Alumni  Register  appears  a 
letter  signed  J.  G.  R.,  '52  C.,  the  initials  and  class  of  Mr.  J.  G.  Rosengarten, 
a  trustee: 

"Editor  of  Alumni  Register. 

"For  years  the  University  has  appealed  to  the  alumni  for  much-needed 
help.  Now  that  the  second  report  of  the  united  alumni  is  submitted  to  the 
trustees  and  to  the  University  and  the  great  body  of  teachers  and  students, 
its  recommendations  are  scouted  at.  The  students  of  the  Wharton  School 
protest  against  those  of  the  Alumni  Committee  on  that  department,  and  insist 
on  free  speech  as  the  privilege  of  its  faculty.  The  very  temperate  recom- 
mendation of  the  Alumni  Committee,  of  which  Mr.  Thomas  S.  Gates  was 
chairman,  simply  called  attention  to  doubtful  public  utterances  on  questions 
of  the  day,  made  by  members  of  the  faculty  of  the  Wharton  School  in  a  manner 
to  invite  public  criticism  of  the  University  for  such  statements.  If  the  help 
of  experienced  alumni  is  to  be  of  any  service,  it  must  be  by  just  such  meas- 
ured judgment  as  that  expressed  in  guarded  and  well-weighed  terms  by  the 
Committee  on  the  Wharton  School.  Mr.  Gates  holds  an  important  and 
responsible  position  as  the  head  of  a  great  trust  company,  and  his  opinions 
as  to  the  abuse  of  a  place  in  the  University  faculty  by  men  who  spread  false 
doctrine  and  arouse  class  prejudice  and  fallacious  conclusions,  well  repre- 
sents the  objections  of  the  intelligent  public  to  the  utterances  for  which  the 
University  is  made  responsible.  Nobody  cares  much  for  itinerant  lecturers 
who  seek  notoriety  by  exaggerated  statements  and  appeals  to  popular  passions 
and  prejudice,  but  every  one  really  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  University 
does  object  to  its  name  being  thus  abused  before  the  public. 

"Joseph  Wharton  founded  the  Wharton  School  of  the  University  to 
train  men  for  business.  It  is  unfair  that  teachers  benefiting  by  his  generous 
endowment  should  forget  the  directions  he  gave  for  carrying  out  the  pur- 
poses of  his  gift.  Much  of  the  good  he  aimed  at  for  students  and  the  pub- 
he  is  lost  when  men  holding  teaching  positions  in  the  Wharton  School  introduce 
there  doctrines  wholly  at  variance  with  those  of  its  founder  and  go  before  the 
public  as  members  of  the  Wharton  School  faculty  and  representatives  of  the 
University,  to  talk  wildly  and  in  a  manner  entirely  inconsistent  with  Mr. 
Wharton's  well-known  views  and  in  defiance  of  the  conservative  opinions  of 
men  of  affairs.  The  University  suffers  in  the  eyes  of  its  alumni  and  the 
public  for  allowing  such  abuses.  No  one  wants  to  restrain  the  public  expression 
of  doctrines  and  opinions,  no  matter  how  much  he  may  deprecate  them  as 


85 

unsound,  but  every  right-minded  alumnus  must  endorse  the  statement  made 
for  the  Committee  on  the  Wharton  School  by  its  chairman,  Mr.  Gates,  that 
'it  places  itself  on  record  as  squarely  opposed  to  the  use  of  the  fair  name 
of  the  University  as  a  point  of  vantage  for  utterances  foreign  to  the  scheme 
of  its  teaching  and  ideals  in  education,  and  recommends  that  where  such 
members  of  its  teaching  staff  are  not  willing  to  subscribe  to  its  policies,  their 
services  should  be  dispensed  with.'  The  reports  of  the  committees  of  the 
General  Alumni  Society  on  the  other  departments  of  the  University  are  all 
deserving  careful  consideration  of  the  recommendations  made  in  them. 
Trustees,  professors,  deans,  even  the  Provost,  with  his  constant  and  watch- 
ful supervision  of  the  great  and  growing  University,  may  well  accept  grate- 
fully the  help  of  the  alumni  and  give  careful  consideration  to  the  report  and 
recommendations  of  its  representatives  embodied  in  this  last  word.  While 
the  University  is  steadily  growing  in  numbers  and  strength  and  importance, 
it  needs  the  sympathy  and  support  of  its  alumni  and  the  opinions  of  its  com- 
mittees are  entitled  to  careful  consideration.  Action  on  them  may  well  be 
taken  by  the  University  authorities  after  discussion,  and  thus  the  alumni 
may  take  at  Old  Penn  the  important  place  long  since  given  to  those  of  Har- 
vard and  Yale,  Princeton  and  Columbia. — J.  G.  R.,  '52  C." 


16.    THE  COOPERATION  OF  DIRECTORS  AND  TRUSTEES.*, 

Former  Attorney  General  John  C.  Bell,  a  trustee  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Mr.  Isaac  A.  Pennypacker,  of 
the  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society,  join  in 
making  public  in  the  Sunday  edition  of  the  Philadelphia  Inquirer 
that  certain  trustees  were  willing,  perhaps  even  anxious,  to  send 
Doctor  Nearing  off  with  a  year's  unearned  salary  in  his  pocket. 
I  do  not  know  of  my  personal  knowledge  that  the  board  of  trustees 
has  offered  Doctor  Nearing  a  year's  extra  salary,  or  that  this  offer 
has  been  refused.  My  personal  acquaintance  with  Professor 
Nearing  has  been  limited  to  casual  conversations,  and  I  have  had 
no  communication  of  any  kind  with  him  or  with  any  person 
authorized  to  represent  him  for  the  last  six  months. 

I  have  been  told,  however,  by  a  colleague,  that  the  Wharton 
School  faculty  have  agreed  to  guarantee  Doctor  Nearing  a,  sum 
equal  to  his  salary  if  he  should  prove  to  be  in  need  of  financial 
support.  Mr.  Bell  may  be  correct  in  saying  that  board  elements 
favorable  to  Doctor  Nearing  opposed  granting  him  a  year's  extra 
salary  on  the  plea  that  to  offer  him  money  would  be  to  convey 
an  insult.  Doctor  Nearing's  friends  probably  ask  for  justice,  not 
charity.  Will  Mr.  Bell,  however,  tell  us  whether  another  and 
more  cogent  argument  was  offered  at  the  same  time,  namely,  that 
to  vote  Doctor  Nearing  a  year's  unearned  salary  would  stultify 
the  board  of  trustees  before  the  public,  since  they  claimed  to  be 
removing  Doctor  Nearing  from  his  assistant  professorship  for 
cause? 

The  simultaneous  utterances  of  a  trustee  and  of  a  director 
of  the  General  Alumni  Society  disclose  a  curious  situation,  revealed 
perhaps  more  plainly  in  the  pages  of  the  Alumni  Register. 

Mr.  Isaac  A.  Pennypacker,  an  attorney  and  a  member  of 
the  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society,  said  in  the 
course  of  the  statement  mentioned  above,  "I  had  been  led  to 
believe  that  Doctor  Nearing  would  not  have  been  dismissed  in 
the  abrupt  fashion  accredited  to  the  institution."  Mr.  Penny- 
packer  believes  that  the  University's  moral  duty  has  been  dis- 
charged by  the  supposed  offer  of  the  trustees  to  provide  Doctor 

*  From  the  Public  Ledger  and  the  North  American,  7/23/15. 

(86) 


87 

Nearing  with  the  means  to  tide  over  any  lapse  between  university 
engagements,  and  ex-Attorney  General  John  C.  Bell  informs  us 
that  he  introduced  at  the  meeting  which  abruptly  dismissed 
Professor  Nearing  a  resolution  to  grant  Doctor  Nearing  a  year's 
extra  salary.  Recently  a  member  of  the  reactionary  clique  of 
local  alumni,  not  a  trustee,  volunteered  in  the  course  of  conversa- 
tion this  amazing  statement,  "We  were  willing  to"  give  Scott 
Nearing  a  year's  extra  salary."  Are  the  relations  between 
certain  members  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni 
Society  and  certain  members  of  the  board  of  trustees  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania  so  intimate  that  alumni  directors  may 
assume  to  dictate,  or  at  least  to  predict,  the  future  action  of  the 
board  of  trustees? 

The  editorial  and  other  utterances  of  the  Alumni  Register 
in  the  last  two  years  point  to  the  existence  of  a  determined  plot 
to  undermine  the  position  and  influence  of  the  faculty  on  the  one 
hand,  and  on  the  other  to  encourage  trustees  to  assert  the  right 
of  arbitrary  dismissal  of  such  members  of  the  teaching  staff  as, 
in  the  language  of  Mr.  Thomas  S.  Gates,  "are  not  willing  to 
subscribe"  to  certain  policies.  I  do  not  know  whether  this  plot 
was  consciously  formed  and  intentionally  carried  forward  to  its 
recent  culmination  in  Doctor  Nearing's  dismissal,  or  whether  it 
presents  only  the  natural  co-operation  of  men  who  happen  to 
think  alike. 

On  this  point  Mr.  Isaac  A.  Pennypacker  is  best  able  to  give 
us  information.  Even  as  early  as  the  time  when  he  was  secretary 
of  the  General  Alumni  Society  and  managing  editor  of  the  Alumni 
Register,  there  appeared  in  the  Alumni  Register  a  definition  of 
academic  freedom,  which  relates  that  "the  false  in  medicine,  in 
engineering,  in  science,  in  law  must  be  stamped  as  error  so  plainly 
that  the  student  cannot  miss  his  way;"  and  again,  students  should 
not  be  encouraged  "to  view  black  as  white,  vice  as  virtue,  delusion 
as  fact."  Over  his  own  name  as  secretary,  Mr.  Pennypacker  tells 
us  that  the  tendency  to  look  for  income  from  the  commonwealth 
of  Pennsylvania  is  "dangerous,"  because  the  University  will  be 
expected  to  return  for  its  income  practical  services,  in  connection 
with  the  application  of  learning,  "more  appropriate  to  a  general 
utility  department  of  a  governmental  unit  than  to  an  academic 
institution." 


88 

In  the  reorganization  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  General 
Alumni  Society,  effected  in  June,  1912,  several  members  of  the 
board  of  trustees  took  part.  The  fall  of  1912  discovered  Mr. 
Horace  M.  Lippincott  as  secretary  of  the  board  of  directors  and 
editor  of  the  Alumni  Register,  and  we  find  trustees  and  professors 
from  that  time  on  excluded  from  membership  in  the  board  of 
directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society.  The  effect  of  this  was 
to  separate  the  directors  entirely  from  faculty  influence  and 
support.  Did  it,  however,  separate  them  from  trustee  influence 
and  support? 

Mr.  Isaac  A.  Pennypacker  remained  a  member  of  the  board 
of  directors  and  an  editor  of  the  Alumni  Register.  His  uncle  is  a 
trustee,  ex-Governor  Samuel  W.  Pennypacker.  Does  the  nephew's 
qualification  to  sit  on  the  editorial  board  of  the  Alumni  Register 
as  a  judge  of  economic  orthodoxy  reside  in  this  relationship,  or  in 
the  diligent  and  successful  pursuit  of  economics  and  social  science 
during  his  college  course? 

Mr.  Murdoch  Kendrick,  another  member  of  the  board  of 
directors,  is  an  attorney  closely  associated  with  ex-Attorney 
General  John  C.  Bell,  a  trustee.  Mr.  William  A.  Redding,  presi- 
dent of  the  General  Alumni  Society,  is  also  an  attorney,  a  former 
partner  of  Mr.  J.  Levering  Jones,  another  trustee.  Mr.  William 
J.  Serrill  is  an  employe  of  the  United  Gas  Improvement  Company, 
of  which  a  trustee,  Mr.  Randal  Morgan,  is  vice-president  and 
general  counsel;  and  Mr.  Thomas  S.  Gates,  in  view  of  his  personal 
relations  with  Mr.  E.  T.  Stotesbury,  a  trustee,  represents  the 
alumni  with  no  more  propriety  than  he  represents  the  city's 
interests  on  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Philadelphia  Rapid 
Transit  Company.  Whether  the  "Alumni  Register  campaign" 
originated  within  this  group  of  alumni,  or  whether  it  was  initiated 
by  the  board  of  trustees,  it  is  quite  clear  from  the  pages  of  the 
Alumni  Register  that  it  threatened  to  come  to  a  head  over  the  case 
of  Dr.  William  Draper  Lewis,  dean  of  the  Law  School,  who  is 
subjected  to  grossly  abusive  editorial  criticism  in  the  December, 
1914,  number  of  the  Alumni  Register. 

Failing  to  "get"  Dean  Lewis,  the  Alumni  Register  schemers 
were  ready  to  accept  a  victim  from  some  other  faculty.  In 
reporting  the  second  annual  conference  of  Associated  Pennsylvania 
Clubs,  held  hi  Chicago,  June  11  and  12,  1914,  the  reporter,  whom 


I  surmise  to  be  Mr.  H.  M.  Lippincott,  says,  "It  was  felt  that  th« 
Law,  College  and  Wharton  schools  had  lost  prestige  owing  to  the 
weakness  of  their  faculties." 

Inspiring  information  this,  for  loyal  alumni,  and  small  wonder 
that  it  encouraged  a  British  rowing  coach  to  talk  in  public  before 
alumni  as  follows,  "You,  Mr.  Vice-provost,  as  representing  the 
faculty,  have  told  us  that  the  University  has  added  from  eight 
buildings  in  '76  to  eighty  now;  that  the  students  have  grown  from 
1000  to  7000,  but  what  has  made  your  university?  Why,  athletics. 
Athletics  are  the  biggest  advertisement  for  any  university,  and 
athletics  have  made  Pennsylvania.  What  has  the  faculty  ever 
done  for  athletics?  Nothing.  .  .  .  Get  busy  and  alter  it  all. 
.  .  .  Pressure  on  the  faculty  quick,  and  you  can  do  it."  And 
this  is  the  tone  of  the  Alumni-Register-Mask-and- Wig-athletic 
cabal,  which  represents,  I  am  sure,  but  a  small  minority  of  our 
athletic  alumni  who  have  reason  to  be  grateful  that  faculty 
intervention  helped  to  rescue  the  Pennsylvania  athlete  from  the 
disrepute  of  professionalism  to  which  too  exclusive  alumni  control 
had  subjected  him. 

The  May,  1915,  number  of  the  Alumni  Register,  just  preceding 
the  action  of  the  trustees  on  Professor  Nearing's  reappointment, 
reveals  the  various  ramifications  of  this  conspiracy,  if  it  was  a 
conspiracy.  Mr.  Serrill  writes  a  laudatory  article  on  the  board 
of  trustees,  and  pointing  to  a  display  of  interlocking  directorships 
of  corporations  and  to  other  qualifications,  claims  these  serve  to 
"demonstrate  that  the  present  membership  of  the  Board  is  in 
keeping  with  its  best  traditions."  The  Alumni  Register  applauds 
enthusiastically  and  heartens  up  the  trustees  to  their  appointed 
task:  " They  have  proved  their  capacity;  they  are  ready  to  prove 
their  courage,  if  need  be."  Mr.  Gates,  who  alone  signs  the  report 
of  the  subcommittee  on  the  Wharton  School,  which  led  directly 
to  Doctor  Nearing's  dismissal,  refers  to  the  "tendency  on  the  part 
of  a  certain  element  in  the  teaching  staff  to  seek  publicity  by 
discussions  of  various  public  topics  in  a  manner  which  is  likely 
to  arouse  class  prejudice  and  fallacious  conclusions  based  on  a 
biased  attitude  of  mind  "  .  .  .  "  a  tendency  to  carry  these  impres- 
sions into  the  classroom"  should  be  "controlled  by  the  dean  as 
head  of  the  department,"  who,  it  should  be  said  hi  passing,  is  an 
appointee  of  the  provost  and  board  of  trustees. 


90 

Mr.  Gates,  for  his  committee,  also  recommends  that  "where 
such  members  of  the  teaching  staff  are  not  willing  to  subscribe  to 
its  policies,  their  services  should  be  dispensed  with."  Editorially, 
the  Alumni  Register  says:  "We  urge  on  the  trustees  a  more 
receptive  attitude  toward  these  reports,  the  work  of  capable 
and  loyal  alumni.  Either  the  functions  granted  to  us  are  to  be 
purely  perfunctory  or  they  are  to  be  helpful,  suggestive  and  real." 
In  this  number  a  paragraph  makes  its  appearance  in  quotation 
marks,  called  editorially  the  "requirement  of  the  alumni  by  the 
trustees,"  which  requirement  directs  subcommittees  of  the  alumni 
board  of  directors  to  attend  from  time  to  time  "on  the  examina- 
tions and  recitations  and  other  exercises  of  the  department  for 
which  such  committees  have  been  appointed,"  to  confer  with  the 
professors  and  faculty  thereof  in  all  matters  that  may  tend  to 
improvement  or  be  advisable  for  the  correction  of  errors,"  and 
"annually  or  oftener,  if  they  deem  the  same  expedient,  make 
report  to  the  board  of  directors  and  their  report,  if  approved,  shall 
be  forwarded  to  the  Trustees." 

In  these  words,  without  previous  notification  to  or  consulta- 
tion with  the  faculty,  the  board  of  trustees  commits  the  several 
departments  of  instruction  to  the  educational  supervision  of  a 
non-professional  group  of  alumni.  Whatever  action  the  board 
of  trustees  may  have  taken,  and  we  have  as  yet  no  word  from  the 
board  as  to  what  their  supposed  requirements  portend,  a  member 
of  the  board,  Mr.  Joseph  G.  Rosengarten,  discloses  the  affiliation 
between  the  board  of  trustees  and  the  directors  of  the  General 
Alumni  Society  in  a  letter  to  the  Alumni  Register.  He  speaks 
of  the  "very  moderate  recommendation  of  the  alumni  committee, 
of  which  Mr.  Thomas  S.  Gates  was  chairman."  Mr.  Gates,  he 
says,  "holds  an  important  and  responsible  position  as  the  head 
of  a  great  trust  company,  and  his  opinions  as  to  the  abuse  of  a 
place  in  the  University  faculty  by  men  who  spread  false  doctrines 
and  arouse  class  prejudice  and  fallacious  conclusions  well  repre- 
sents the  objections  of  the  intelligent  public  to  the  utterances  for 
which  the  University  is  made  responsible." 

The  story  of  this  campaign  to  undermine  the  control  of  the 
faculty  over  appointments  and  removals,  and  to  empower  a  small 
group  of  alumni  to  make  definitive  recommendations  contrary 
to  the  recommendations  of  the  faculty,  should  have  the  sole 


91 

object  of  bringing  out  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth. 
In  furtherance  of  this  object,  we  alumni  seek  information  on 
certain  doubtful  points: 

1.  When  the  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society 
was  organized  under  the  chairmanship  of  a  trustee,  Mr.  Samuel 
F.  Houston,  was  the  power  to  make  by-laws  committed  to  the 
board  itself  and  not  to  the  membership  of  the  society? 

2.  In  the  exercise  of  this  power,  did  the  board  produce  a 
by-law  or  a  supposed  by-law,  making  seven  members  the  legal 
quorum,  which  by-law  was  not  to  be  found  among  the  minutes  of 
any  previous  meeting  of  the  board? 

3.  Did  Provost  Smith  write  a  letter  to  the  board,  presumably 
to  its  secretary,  Mr.  Isaac  A.  Pennypacker,  recommending  the 
appointment  of  a  person  other  than  Mr.  H.  M.  Lippincott,  which 
person  he  named  as  in  his  opinion  a  satisfactory  candidate  for  the 
office  of  secretary? 

4.  Was  this  letter  withheld  from  the  official  knowledge  of  the 
members  of  the  board,  and  Mr.  Lippincott  elected  secretary  at  a 
meeting  immediately   following  Provost   Smith's  departure  for 
Europe,  and  did  this  action  and  other  actions  of  the  board  call 
from  the  provost  a  signed  protest,  published  in  Old  Penn  for 
October  12,   1912,  under  the  caption  "My  Understanding,"  in 
which  occurs  this  statement,  "I  did  not  understand  that  he  (the 
secretary)  was  necessarily  to  be  the  editor  of  any  publication  that 
the  alumni  might  see  fit  to  send  forth  in  the  shape  of  a  magazine 
or  a  weekly  paper." 

5.  Despite  the  statement  of  the  provost,  "It  was  my  under- 
standing that  the  provost's  committee  would  continue  until  he 
saw  fit  to  discharge  the  committee,"  was  the  committee  dis- 
charged by  the  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society, 
and  was  "the  Pennsylvania  Alumni  Fund,"  which  was  raised  by 
an  appeal  "to  place  in  the  hands  of  Provost  Smith  the  necessary 
funds,"  taken  out  of  his  control  and  put  at  the  disposal  of  the 
board  of  directors? 

6.  Is  "the  alumni  fund,"  of  nearly  $70,000,  now  exhausted, 
and  did  the  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society 
appeal  recently  to  the  board  of  trustees  for  financial  assistance? 

7.  Why  has  the  board  of  directors  of  the  General  Alumni 
Society  sought  to  gain  control  over  the  publicity  bureau  of  the 


92 

University  of  Pennsylvania,  and  of  the  publication  entitled  Old 
Pennf  And  is  it  true  that  the  provost  alone  has  stood  in  the 
way  of  a  successful  issue  to  these  endeavors? 

8.  How  is  the  editorial  board  of  the  Alumni  Register  legally 
appointed?    And  from  whom  and  at  what  dates  did  each  member 
of  its  editorial  staff  receive  his  present  commission? 

9.  Did  this  small  group  of  alumni — small  even  in  comparison 
to  the  small  board  of  directors — find  their  power  within  them- 
selves, or  did  they  have  the  support  and  co-operation  of  certain 
members  of  the  board  of  trustees? 

Those  who  are  competent  to  answer  one  or  more  of  these 
questions,  whether  on  behalf  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the 
General  Alumni  Society,  or  on  behalf  of  the  trustees,  have  been 
named  in  the  course  of  this  statement.  A  frank  and  unequivocal 
answer  to  these  questions  is  sought  only  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing what  may  be  the  exact  truth  as  to  certain  incidents  in 
recent  University  history,  in  order  that  some  of  the  alumni  may 
decide  whether  we  must  organize  a  new  association  to  oppose 
the  continued  misrepresentation  of  alumni  sentiment  by  the 
very  small  but  determined  minority  which  controls  the  board  of 
directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society  and  edits  the  "Alumni 
Register." 


17.    THE  ALUMNI  TRUSTEES.* 

"It  is  reported  that  the  secretary  of  the  General  Alumni 
Society  is  asking  for  nominations  to  fill  a  vacancy  on  the  board  of 
trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  The  present  method 
of  securing  the  election  of  so-called  *  alumni  trustees'  should  befool 
none  of  the  alumni  whose  intelligence  has  passed  the  stage  of  child- 
like innocence.  The  board  of  trustees  has  granted  to  the  board  of 
directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society  the  right  to  offer  four 
names,  from  which  one  may  be  chosen  by  the  board  to  fill  the 
present  (vacancy. 

"If,  however,  none  of  these  four  names  is  acceptable  to  the 
board  of  trustees,  four  other  names  may  then  be  proposed  by  the 
general  alumni  board,  and  so  on,  until  the  vacancy  is  filled.  The 
alumni,  therefore,  cannot  secure  the  election  to  the  board  of  trustees 
of  an  alumnus  who  is  not  acceptable  to  the  board,  but  who  may  be 
acceptable  to  them.  The  trustees  play  with  the  alumni  on  the 
principle  'heads,  I  win;  tails,  you  lose';  the  appearance  of  doing 
something  is  expected  to  gratify  the  alumni,  while  preserving  intact 
the  self-perpetuating  power  of  the  board  of  trustees. 

"  The  only  way  for  the  alumni  to  secure  the  election  of  a  real 
'  alumni  trustee '  is  for  the  alumni,  or  a  large  group  of  the  alumni, 
to  agree  upon  some  one  man  and  to  insist  upon  the  board  of  trustees 
accepting  this  nominee  as  the  alumni  trustee,  or  none  at  all.  This 
nominee  should  be  of  such  conspicuous  distinction  as  to  be  able  to 
win  to  his  support  the  alumni  of  various  departments. 

"If  four  names  are  suggested,  of  which  one  shall  be  Mr. 
William  A.  Redding,  a  corporation  lawyer,  now  president  of  the 
General  Alumni  Society,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  those  who 
propose  such  names  intend  to  give  the  board  of  trustees  the 
opportunity  to  elect  another  corporation  lawyer,  who  has  already 
expressed  himself  on  free  speech  and  other  matters,  in  such  wise  as 
to  show  that  he  is  in  entire  sympathy  with  what  appears  to  be  the 
dominant  element  in  the  board  of  trustees  and  the  board  of 
directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society." 

.     *  From  the  the  Public  Ledger  and  North  American,  9/4/15. 

(93) 


CHAPTER 
Assets  and  Liabilities. 

18.    GLITTERING  GENERALITIES. 

(From  the  New  York  American,  7/19/15.) 

The  interview  with  George  Wharton  Pepper  was  obtained  in  his  offices 
in  the  Land  Title  Building,  Philadelphia.  Mr.  Pepper  in  addition  to  being  a 
noted  corporation  lawyer,  gained  fame  several  years  ago  as  attorney  for  Giff ord 
Pinchot  in  the  Pinchot-Ballinger  controversy. 

A  direct  request  was  made  to  Mr.  Pepper  for  a  reason  for  the  dismissal 
of  Dr.  Nearing.  He  said: 

"I  will  speak  only  for  myself  in  this  matter.  Dr.  Nearing's  name  came 
before  the  trustees  at  their  last  meeting  in  the  regular  manner.  He  had  been 
endorsed  by  Dean  McCrea  for  another  term,  and  it  is  customary  for  the  trustees 
to  act  favorably  in  such  cases.  Still  it  was  in  their  power  to  turn  down  the 
application  if  they  saw  fit. 

"A  motion  was  made  that  Dr.  Nearing  be  engaged  for  another  term,  but 
another  member  of  the  board  raised  the  question  whether  he  was  not  a 
greater  liability  than  an  asset.  There  was  considerable  discussion  over  the 
matter  and  it  was  ultimately  decided  that  he  was  a  liability  that  the  University 
should  not  carry.  I 

"  There  can  be  no  question  that  there  is  a  great  field  for  Dr.  Nearing  as  a 
teacher  in  the  university,  but  it  was  decided  that  he  could  be  of  greater  benefit 
ot  the  community  as  a  free  lance." 

This  statement  did  not  seem  consistent,  and  Mr.  Pepper  was  asked  to  be 
more  specific  as  to  the  character  of  the  charges  made  against  the  dismissed 
professor. 

"  I  do  not  see  how  I  can  be  more  specific  under  the  circumstances — the 
situation  is  a  very  delicate  one,"  he  answered. 

"Then  how  was  Dr.  Nearing  characterized  by  those  who  opposed  him?" 
urged  the  interviewer. 

"Well,  he  was,  I  believe,  characterized  by  some  one  present  as  the 
'Billy*  Sunday  of  the  university  world,"  was  the  answer. 

The  lawyer  himself  laughed  over  this,  but  became  serious  again  when  the 
xrobing  for  the  real  motive  was  renewed. 

"  Was  there  ever  a  charge  against  the  private  conduct  of  Dr.  Nearing,  or 
that  he  was  irreligious?" 

The  response  to  this  was  genuine  and  prompt. 

"No,  quite  to  the  contrary,"  said  Mr.  Pepper.  "Dr.  Nearing  for  all  the 
trustees  know  of  him,  was  a  most  exemplary  young  professor  and  I  have  heard 
from  his  associates  that  he  was  a  deeply  religious  man.  I  do  not,  however, 
know  what  church  he  identified  himself  with,  if  any." 

(94) 


95 

"Do  the  trustees  contemplate  any  formal  statement  which  will  justify 
their  position?" 

"No;  this  brings  to  the  front  again  the  delicate  position  in  which  the 
trustees  find  themselves.  Dr.  Nearing  has  made  no  request  for  an  explanation 
of  his  dismissal.  His  conduct  since  this  controversy  started  has  also  been  most 
admirable. 

"Under  these  circumstances  any  statement  which  might  reflect  on  Dr. 
Nearing  would  be  unfair.  The  board  would  prefer  to  let  the  matter  rest  where 
it  is,  as  there  can  be  no  question  that  they  acted  within  their  charter  rights. 

"It  may  be  that  this  controversy  will  result  in  much  good  to  the  univer- 
sities throughout  the  world.  The  question  has  been  raised  as  to  the  dangers 
of  permitting  a  university  to  be  governed  by  a  board  of  trustees  to  which  the 
faculty  have  no  voting  voice.  I,  for  one,  will  be  glad  to  see  this  question 
threshed  out  in  the  open,  as  the  welfare  of  our  universities  is  at  stake." 

Mr.  Pepper  could  not  be  induced  to  admit  that  politics  played  a  strong 
part  in  determining  the  policy  of  the  trustees  in  the  Nearing  case.  It  is  pointed 
out,  however,  that  there  are  facts  which  speak  for  themselves. 

Politically  there  is  a  strong  Republican  organization  element  in  the  uni- 
versity board  of  trustees.  John  C.  Bell,  a  member  of  the  board,  was  Attorney 
General  under  Governor  Tener.  He  was  given  the  appointment  in  preference 
to  Francis  Shunk  Brown,  the  incumbent,  through  the  influence  of  James  P. 
McNichol. 

McNichol  is  closely  identified  with  the  traction  and  lighting  interests  of 
Philadelphia.  He  is  known  to  have  opposed  Nearing,  but  pointed  out  the 
danger  ahead  of  a  public  protest  if  he  was  dismissed. 

This  information  was  imparted  to  The  American  representative  by  one  of 
McNichol's  trusted  lieutenants  and  reveals  that  the  plan  to  remove  the  radical 
young  professor  was  freely  discussed  for  weeks  before  the  final  meeting  of  the 
university  trustees. 


19.    THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  WHARTON  SCHOOL.* 

Mr.  George  Wharton  Pepper  is  quoted  in  an  interview  in  the 
New  York  American  of  July  19,  as  saying,  concerning  Doctor 
Nearing's  dismissal  by  the  board  of  trustees,  "  A  motion  was  made 
that  Doctor  Nearing  be  engaged  for  another  term,  but  another 
member  of  the  board  raised  the  question  whether  he  was  not  a 
greater  liability  than  an  asset.  There  was  considerable  discussion 
over  the  matter,  and  it  was  ultimately  decided  that  he  was  a 
liability  that  the  University  should  not  carry."  Did  the  trustees 
consider  all  the  facts,  some  of  which  tend  to  prove  that  Dr.  Nearing, 
as  a  member  of  the  Wharton  School  faculty,  was  not  a  liability,  but 
an  asset  to  the  University  of  Pennsylvania? 

For  the  financial  year  ending  June  30,  1914,  the  trustees 
expended,  in  round  numbers,  $96,000  on  the  salaries  of  professors 
and  instructors  in  the  Wharton  School,  and  in  addition  paid 
the  college  department  $25,000  for  the  tuition  of  Wharton  School 
students,  and  charged  the  Wharton  School  with  $23,000  for 
general  University  administration  salaries  and  expenses. 

These  payments  were  made  out  of  the  income  of  the  Wharton 
School,  which  included  $25,000  income  from  the  Wharton  School 
Fund,  the  endowment  of  Mr.  Joseph  Wharton,  and  $136,000  from 
tuition  fees.  In  the  ten-year  period  ending  June  30,  1914,  the 
endowment  fund  contributed  $233,000  and  tuition  fees  $676,000 
to  the  income  of  the  Wharton  School.  Of  this  income,  $140,000 
was  paid  to  other  departments  for  the  instruction  of  Wharton 
School  students,  and  $103,000  to  the  University  for  general 
administration,  salaries  and  expenses.  The  income  of  the  Wharton 
School  from  tuition  fees  has  increased  from  $29,000  for  the  year 
ending  August  31,  1905,  to  $136,000  for  the  year  ending  June  30, 
1914. 

These  figures  seem  to  show  that  during  this  ten-year  period 
the  Wharton  School  made  a  very  remarkable  increase  in  income 
from  its  student  body.  Was  this  increase  due  primarily  to  the 
trustees,  or  to  the  faculty  of  the  Wharton  School?  The  trustees 
have  contributed  the  baccalaureate  degree  under  the  seal  of  the 

*From  the  Public  Ledger,  8/12/15,  and  the  North  American,  8/15/15. 

(96) 


97 

University  of  Pennsylvania,  and  perhaps  the  item  of  rent,  although 
during  this  same  period  the  Wharton  School  was  charged  with 
$86,000  for  maintenance,  supplies  and  expenses.  It  is  unreasonable 
to  suppose  that  any  considerable  number  of  students  came  to  the 
Wharton  School  because  particular  individuals  were  members  of 
the  board  of  trustees.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  students  did  come  to  the  Wharton  School  because 
they  expected  to  obtain  the  kind  of  education  given  by  the  instruc- 
tors advertised  in  its  prospectus.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  reputa- 
tion and  development  of  the  Wharton  School  is  due  to  its  teaching 
body,  and  special  departments,  as,  for  example,  the  evening 
school,  resulted  solely  from  ventures  for  which  Wharton  School 
instructors  assumed  even  financial  responsibility,  in  very  much 
the  same  manner  as  the  college  courses  for  teachers,  the  sum- 
mer school  and  the  graduate  school  all  were  initiated  by  mem- 
bers of  the  faculty,  without  the  financial  support  of  the  trustees. 
The  Wharton  School  instructors  have  not  been  a  liability  to  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  but  an  asset,  as  may  be  seen  by  the 
large  amounts  which  have  been  paid  to  the  college  department 
and  to  general  University  expenses.  Nevertheless,  a  particular 
instructor,  for  example,  Doctor  Nearing,  may  conceivably  have 
been  a  liability. 

But  who  is  the  better  judge  of  whether  he  is  a  liability  or 
an  asset,  the  faculty  of  the  Wharton  School  or  the  board  of  trustees? 
Who  are  the  better  judges,  the  trustees  who  made  him  an  assistant 
professor  in  1914,  after  many  years  of  service  as  an  instructor, 
or  the  trustees  who  voted  not  to  reappoint  him  in  1915,  despite 
the  fact  that  he  is  admitted  to  be  one  of  the  best  instructors  hi  the 
institution? 

It  is  asserted  that  the  trustees  are  beginning  to  feel  an  increas- 
ing responsibility  to  the  parents  of  the  young  men  who  are  sent 
to  the  various  departments  of  the  University  for  instruction. 
The  Alumni  Register  expressed  this  feeling  when  it  said  in  No- 
vember, 1914,  "Trustees  have  a  very  sacred  trust  to  administer 
when  they  accept  the  confidence  of  parents  that  they  will  select 
teachers  who  are  capable  and  sound  scholars."  The  development 
of  the  Wharton  School,  which  I  have  briefly  sketched,  would  seem 
to  create  a  presumption  that  the  faculty  of  the  Wharton  School 
is  competent  to  judge  what  the  parents  of  the  young  men  attending 


98 

this  school  really  desire  for  their  sons.  Have  the  trustees  then 
unwisely  set  their  opinion  over  against  the  opinion  of  the  Wharton 
School  Faculty,  or  are  they,  as  they  claim,  the  better  judges  of 
public  opinion  and  of  parental  wishes? 

The  trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  are  all  Phila- 
delphians,  and  may  be  said  to  represent  the  ruling  social,  financial 
and  political  class  in  this  city.  I  have  looked  for  the  representa- 
tives of  what  I  may  call  hi  this  sense  the  "first  families  of  Phila- 
delphia," among  the  students  of  the  Wharton  School.  There  are 
not  more  than  19  such  students  distributed  among  the  four 
regular  classes,  7  per  cent  of  the  senior  class,  2  per  cent  of  the 
junior  class  and  1.5  per  cent  of  the  sophomore  and  freshman 
classes  respectively.  As  there  are  2265  students  registered  in  the 
various  Wharton  School  courses,  these  19  students  represent  8-10 
of  1  per  cent  of  the  Wharton  School  student  body. 

These  facts  have  a  critical  significance  in  relation  to  one  set 
of  circumstances  leading  to  Professor  Nearing's  dismissal.  I  have 
already  shown  some  features  of  the  campaign  conducted  by  a 
fractional  portion  of  this  "first  family"  group  in  the  board  of 
directors  of  the  General  Alumni  Society.  This  campaign  was 
supported  indirectly  by  complaints,  often  of  calumnious  character, 
originating  among  other  representatives  of  this  same  social  group. 
For  instance,  a  Wharton  School  student  recently  signed  the  follow- 
ing statement:  " has  never  (1)  met  or  spoken  to  Scott 

Nearing  in  his  life  until  today;  (2)  has  been  in  his  lectures  but 
never  in  his  quiz  classes;  (3)  has  never  been  asked  any  oral  ques- 
tions, nor  has  ever  answered  any  oral  questions  of  Scott  Nearing 
until  today." 

This  statement  was  secured  by  Professor  Nearing  because 
one  or  more  members  of  the  board  of  trustees  had  been  informed 
by  the  student's  father,  a  Philadelphia  Judge,  that  Professor 
Nearing  in  quizzing  his  son  had  commented  on  the  answer  given 
to  some  question,  "Well,  that  is  the  kind  of  ignorance  I  would 
expect  to  find  in  judicial  circles." 

It  is  claimed  that  after  the  signed  statement  proving  the 
original  report  to  be  false  had  been  brought  to  the  attention  of 
members  of  the  board  of  trustees,  the  story  was  nevertheless 
repeated,  excepting  that  it  was  brought  forward  then  "to  illustrate 
the  kind  of  thing  which  Professor  Nearing  was  saying."  The 


99 

trustees  naturally  are  responsive  to  the  criticisms  of  students  and 
parents  of  their  own  social  set.  When  such  criticisms  are  received 
by  the  provost  or  trustees,  they  should  not  be  made  matters  of 
discussion  by  the  board  to  the  postponement  of  matters  of  greater 
importance,  but  should  be  referred  to  the  dean  of  the  department 
and  ultimately  to  the  professor  himself.  Only  in  this  way  can  the 
true  be  separated  from  the  false,  and  legitimate  criticism  be  satis- 
factorily answered.  Thus,  another  Philadelphia  father  wrote 
to  the  dean  of  the  college  objecting  to  his  son  having  been  put  on 
probation,  adding  that  he  did  not  "see  how  a  student  could  get 
interested  in  that  subject  anyway."  As  a  matter  of  fact  the 
student  was  interested  in  the  subject  and  had  a  good  mind,  but 
did  not  do  the  work.  Later  on  he  voluntarily  informed  the 
professor  in  charge  of  the  department  that  the  real  trouble  with 
his  work  was  due  to  the  excessive  rehearsals  of  the  Mask  and  Wig. 

This  social  group  is  not  only  thoroughly  provincial,  it  is  very 
small  and  closely  interrelated  in  business  and  family  life.  A 
casual  remark  may  thus  travel  far  by  underground  communica- 
tion, as,  for  example,  one  made  last  winter  at  a  club  dining  table, 
which  reached  the  provost  before  the  person  making  it,  although 
he  went  straight  from  the  club  to  the  provost's  office  on  a  matter 
of  business.  "A  little  bird"  had  brought  him  the  information, 
so  the  provost  said. 

"The  little  bird"  belongs,  hi  some  cases,  to  the  species 
which  feeds  upon  the  reputation  of  those  whom  it  has  not  the 
courage  to  assail  openly.  Because  the  board  of  trustees  dismissed 
Doctor  Nearing  in  secrecy,  and  has  since  then  preserved  its 
secret  intact,  it  is  now  being  whispered  in  clubs  and  private 
drawing  rooms  that  serious,  and  even  "unprintable"  charges 
were  the  basis  of  Doctor  Nearing's  dismissal.  If  the  provost 
of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  will  only  bear  the  same  testi- 
mony in  public  which  he  bore  in  secrecy  before  the  board  of  trustees, 
it  will  entirely  set  at  rest  such  rumors.  In  the  interview  to  which 
I  referred  at  the  beginning  of  this  article,  Mr.  Pepper  is  quoted  as 
denying  that  there  was  any  private  charge  against  Doctor  Nearing, 
and  it  is  to  be  expected  that  he  will  take  the  first  opportunity  to 
join  with  his  fellow-trustees  in  relieving  the  provost  of  his  obliga- 
tion to  maintain  the  silence  which  is  at  present  the  cause  of 
gossip. 


100 

The  question  of  how  to  lift  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
above  the  reach  of  the  local  scandal-monger  is  a  critical  one. 
Another  university  professor  has  been  recently  assailed  by  the 
false  report  of  gossip,  a  scholar  whose  qualifications  for  the  honor- 
ary degree  of  LL.D.,  granted  by  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
were  publicly  recited  on  commencement  day,  June  21,  1911,  as 
follows:  " Greatly  esteemed  for  personal  character  and  attain- 
ments by  your  many  associates  in  our  university — investigator 
of  the  history  of  social  and  industrial  changes  in  England — 
author  of  important  treatises  upon  these  and  kindred  subjects — 
admired  by  a  host  of  students  whose  scholarly  careers  attest  your 
wisdom  and  worth  as  a  teacher."  A  calumnious  narrative  owes 
its  origin  to  the  fact  that  he  objected,  among  others,  to  holding 
the  recent  honorary  banquet  given  by  the  faculty  to  the  provost 
in  the  Manufacturers'  Club,  and  also  to  the  fact  that  he  delivered 
an  address  before  the  club  of  Graduate  Alumni  entitled,  "The 
Agitator  in  History,"  an  address  which  embodied  the  deliberate 
opinions  of  a  scientific  historian,  and  which  was  delivered  in  the 
line  of  his  duty  as  a  professor  at  the  university.  Such  addresses 
usually  are  published  for  the  benefit  of  the  alumni,  but  this 
address  was  suppressed,  as  rumor  has  it,  after  it  had  been  submitted 
to  the  censoring  opinion  of  members  of  the  board  of  trustees. 

The  provost,  trustees  and  alumni  must  seriously  consider 
whether  they  will  bear  in  silence  the  machinations  and  calumny 
of  this  small  group  of  local  alumni.  Already  they  have  made 
it  impossible  to  call  from  any  other  institution  an  assistant  pro- 
fessor to  fill  Doctor  Hearing's  vacant  position.  Can  any  scholar 
of  repute  come  to  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  without  first 
asking  his  colleagues  at  this  institution,  "When  a  professor  at 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania  opposes  his  opinions  and  utter- 
ances to  the  opinions  and  private  interests  of  certain  trustees  and 
alumni,  is  he  to  be  made  an  object  of  calumny,  without  official 
protest  or  other  protection  offered  on  the  part  of  the  provost  and 
board  of  trustees,  or  of  those  who  really  represent  the  deliberate 
opinion  of  the  organized  alumni?" 

The  Pennsylvania  Associated  Alumni  of  Rochester  and 
vicinity  voices  in  no  uncertain  terms  its  objection  to  the  recent 
action  of  the  board  of  trustees.  It  is  fitting  that  they  and  other 
alumni  throughout  the  country,  in  Pennsylvania  and  in  Philadel- 


101 

phia,  should  know  the  smallness  of  the  group  which  is  responsible 
in  great  measure  both  for  Professor  Nearing's  dismissal  and  for 
the  supporting  campaign  of  calumny.  To  demonstrate  this  fact, 
I  take  the  college  department,  because  this  department  primarily 
determines  alumni  loyalty,  and  I  can  make  comparisons  between 
it  and  the  college  departments  of  other  universities.  Of  the  431 
students  hi  regular  course,  candidates  for  the  bachelor  of  arts 
degree,  47  are  Philadelphians  representing  the  ruling  social  group 
of  Philadelphia.  In  Harvard  College  there  are  23  students  from 
Philadelphia,  representing  approximately  the  same  group;  at 
Yale  29,  and  at  Princeton  65,  a  total  of  117  out  of  5317  students, 
of  whom  164  represent  the  same  group  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia 
as  do  the  trustees.  Of  these  164,  there  are  47,  or  28  per  cent,  to 
be  found  in  the  college  department  of  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, while  72  per  cent  go  to  Harvard,  Yale  and  Princeton. 
Moreover,  in  the  college  department  of  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania these  students  represent  18  per  cent  of  the  senior  class,  19 
per  cent  of  the  junior  class,  but  only  7  per  cent  of  the  sophomore 
and  freshman  classes,  respectively.  The  ruling  social  group  of 
Philadelphia  is  therefore  sending  about  a  quarter  of  its  sons  to 
the  College  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  and  this  quarter 
is  diminishing  in  proportion  to  the  total  student  body  even  within 
the  college.  If  we  take  the  total  registration  at  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  last  year,  we  find  that  of  7152  students,  5101  came 
from  Pennsylvania,  including  Philadelphia.  The  students  who 
represent  Philadelphia's  ruling  social  and  political  families  in 
the  college,  Wharton  School,  and  Towne  Scientific  School,  consti- 
tute 2  per  cent  of  the  student  body  from  the  State  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  1.4  per  cent  of  the  entire  student  body. 

A  Chinese  student,  who  is  said  to  be  the  son  of  a  mandarin, 
and  who  is  now  connected  with  the  Republican  Government  of 
his  country,  is  quoted  as  having  made  the  following  reflection, 
"Pennsylvania  has  the  opportunity  of  becoming  the  most  demo- 
cratic university  in  the  East,  but  the  opportunity  is  largely  lost 
because  of  the  influence  of  the  so-called  aristocratic  society  element, 
which  infuses  snobbery  into  college  life."  The  aristocratic  element 
of  Philadelphia,  which  is  loyal  to  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
represents  about  one  quarter,  or  generously  not  more  than  one- 
third,  of  the  city's  "ruling  caste."  The  remaining  two-thirds 


102 

is  indifferent  and  in  many  cases  even  hostile  to  the  welfare  of  the 
institution. 

I  believe  that  a  majority  of  the  trustees  seek  to  administer 
the  institution  in  the  interests  of  its  whole  student  body.  Next 
year  will  be  a  critical  one  in  the  history  of  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania, for  it  will  determine  whether  this  institution  is  really  to 
be  conducted  as  a  state  and  national  institution  of  learning  and 
teaching  for  the  students  who  come  from  Pennsylvania  and  from 
other  states  and  foreign  countries,  or  whether  it  is  to  be  con- 
ducted at  the  orders  of  and  in  the  supposed  interests  of  a  small 
group  of  students  and  their  parents,  who  are  steadily  dirninishing 
in  relative  importance  among  the  student  body  and  the  alumni. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Invisible  Government. 

20.    THE  BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES. 

(From  the  Treasurer's  Report  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1914,  pp.  47 

et  seq.) 

Gifts  to  the  University  (exclusive  of  the  Museum),  total $662,613.81 

From  two  trustees  (Messrs.  Rosengarten  and 

Madeira) $3,955.00 

From  the  twenty-two  other  trustees 135 . 00 


Total 4,090.00 

THE  TRUSTEES. 

(Their  business  and  political  affiliations,  as  set  forth  in  the  Alumni 
Register  for  May,  1915,  omitting  all  details  of  personal  and  professional 
activities.) 

CHARLES  CUSTIS  HARRISON,  LL.D.  ...  He  had  first  intended  to  study 
law,  but  was  persuaded  to  enter  the  manufacturing  business,  in  which  he 
continued  until  1892. 

WHARTON  BARKER,  A.M.,  .  .  .  became  member  of  the  banking  firm  of 
Barker  Brothers  and  Co.  In  1898  Mr.  Barker  was  appointed  special 
financial  agent  in  U.  S.  of  the  Russian  Government,  and  intrusted  with  the 
building  of  four  cruisers  for  its  navy.  ...  In  1887  he  obtained  valuable 
railroad,  telegraph  and  telephone  concessions  from  China,  which  were 
withdrawn  in  1888  through  pressure  upon  Chinese  Imperial  Government 
by  British  Government.  Founded  Investment  Co.  of  Phila.  and  The 
Finance  Co.  of  Pa. 

SAMUEL  DICKSON   (deceased  May  28,  1915). 

SAMUEL  WHITAKER  PENNYP ACKER,  LL.D.,  .  .  .  judge  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  No.  2,  Phila.,  1889-96;  presiding  judge,  1896-1902;  Governor  of 
Pennsylvania,  1903-07;  member  Pa.  State  Railroad  Commission,  1912; 
member  Public  Service  Commission. 

MORRIS  JAMES  LEWIS,   M.D.,  Ph.D. 

JOSEPH  G.  ROSENGARTEN,  M.A.  .  .  .  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1856,  and 
.  .  .  established  himself  in  the  legal  profession  in  Philadelphia,  where 
he  has  since  practiced. 

RANDAL  MORGAN,  A.M.  .  .  .  He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1877,  special- 
izing in  corporation  law .  In  1 882  he  was  appointed  general  counsel  for  the 
United  Gas  Improvement  Co.,  which  position  he  still  holds;  and  has  been 
one  of  the  vice-presidents  of  that  company  since  1892. 

(103) 


104 

SAMUEL  FREDERIC  HOUSTON,  Ph.B.  ...  He  is  president  of  the  Nelson 
Valve  Co.,  vice-president  of  the  Real  Estate  Trust  Co.  of  Phila.  and  the 
Winifrede  Coal  Co.  He  is  also  director  of  the  Third  National  Bank, 
Trust  Co.  of  N.  A.,  Susquehanna  Railway  Co.,  and  Coastwise  Transpor- 
tation Co.  4 

JOSEPH  LEVERING  JONES,  LL.D.  ..."  He  engaged  for  a  time  in  mercantile 
pursuits.  ...  In  1879  he  formed  a  partnership  with  William  A.  Redding, 
now  of  the  New  York  bar,  and  Hampton  L.  Carson,  for  the  practice  of 
law.  Mr.  Jones  is  a  member  of  The  Union  League,  on  which  he  has  been 
a  director  and  its  secretary  for  three  years.  .  .  .  He  is  actively  identified 
with  street  railways,  and  is  a  director  of  the  Fort  Wayne  &  Northern 
Indiana  Traction  Co.,  Real  Estate  Trust  Co.,  and  Alliance  Insurance 
Co.  ...  He  also  wrote  "A  History  of  the  Republican  Party,"  and  was 
editor-in-chief  of  the  "  History  of  The  Union  League."  He  is  a  director  of 
the  Trust  Co.  of  N.  A.,  and  Real  Estate  Trust  Co.  .  .  .  Mr.  Jones  is  a 
Republican  in  politics,  and  is  actively  interested  in  public  affairs. 

ROBERT  GRIER  LECONTE,   M.D. 

J.  BERTRAM  LIPPINCOTT,  B.L.  .  .  .  He  entered  the  publishing  business  in 
1875,  and  is  the  president  of  the  J.  B.  Lippincott  Co.  He  is  president  of 
the  Hibernia  Mine  Railroad,  vice-president  of  the  Wharton  Steel  Co., 
and  director  of  the  Farmers  and  Mechanics  National  Bank  of  Phila. 

ARTHUR  LATHAM  CHURCH,  B.S.  ...  In  March,  1886,  Mr.  Church  became 
connected  with  the  Baldwin  Locomotive  Works,  in  charge  of  the  Extra 
Work  Department,  and  is  now  associated  with  that  company. 

GEORGE  HARRISON  FRAZIER,  A.B.  ...  In  1887  Mr.  Frazier  entered  the 
service  of  the  Franklin  Sugar  Refining  Co.,  becoming  secretary  in  1892 
and  treasurer  in  1895.  In  the  year  1896  he  became  associated  with  the 
banking  house  of  Brown  Brothers  &  Co.,  at  the  southeast  corner  of  Fourth 
and  Chestnut  Streets,  subsequently  becoming  a  partner  in  that  house. 
Mr.  Frazier  is  a  director  of  the  American  Sugar  Refining  Co.,  Philadelphia 
National  Bank,  Franklin  National  Bank,  and  Pa.  Co.  for  Insurances 
on  Lives  and  Granting  Annuities.  He  is  also  a  trustee  of  the  U.  S. 
Casualty  Co.  of  N.  Y. 

CHARLES  Louis  BORIE,  JR.,  .  .  .  was  a  member  of  the  firm  of  C.  and  H. 
Borie,  bankers,  from  1894  to  1902,  at  which  time  he  joined  Mr.  C.  C.  Zant- 
zinger  in  the  practice  of  architecture  under  the  firm  name  of  C.  C.  Zant- 
zinger  and  C.  L.  Borie,  architects. 

Louis  CHILDS  MADEIRA,  ...  in  1877  became  a  member  of  the  firm  of  Louis 
C.  Madeira  and  Sons,  insurance  agents,  of  which  firm  he  is  now  the  senior 
member.  He  is  also  a  member  of  the  firm  of  Madeira,  Hill  &  Co.,  miners 
and  shippers  of  anthracite  coal,  and  treasurer  and  a  director  of  the  Salts- 
burg  Coal  Mming  Co.,  and  of  the  Thomas  Colliery  Co.;  member  of  the 
resident  advisory  board  of  the  General  Accident,  Fire  and  Life  Assurance 
Corporation  of  Perth,  Scotland. 

JOHN  CADWALADER,  LL.D.,  .  .  .  president  of  the  Baltimore  and  Phila- 
delphia Steamboat  Co.,  director  of  public  schools,  1875-85;  collector  of 


105 

the  port  of  Phila.,  1885-89;  jury  commissioner  U.  S.  Circuit  Court; 
president  University  Club  (1896- 

EDWARD  TOWNSEND  STOTESBURY.  ...  He  has  been  connected  with  Drexel 
&  Co.,  bankers,  Phila.,  for  many  years,  becoming  a  partner  in  1882.  He 
is  now  the  head  of  Drexel,  Morgan  &  Co.,  Phila.,  and  member  of  J.  P. 
Morgan  &  Co.,  N.  Y.;  president  of  the  Buffalo  Creek  Extension  Railroad 
Co.,  Buffalo  Creek  Railroad,  Germantown  Steam  Heating  Co.,  Keystone 
Watch  Case  Co.,  Metropolitan  Opera  House  Co.  (Phila.),  Pleading  Rail- 
way and  Overbrook  Steam  Heating  Co.;  director  of  Argo  Mills,  Baldwin 
Locomotive  Works,  Buffalo,  Thousand  Islands  &  Portland  Railroad  Co., 
Cambria  Steel  Co.,  Central  Railroad  Co.  of  New  Jersey,  Coxe  Brothers 
&  Co.,  Inc.,  Delaware,  Susquehanna  &  Schuylkill  Railroad  Co.,  E.  Howard 
Watch  Co.,  Electric  Securities  Corporation,  Fidelity  Trust  Co.,  Franklin 
National  Bank  (Phila.),  Girard  Trust  Co.,  Highland  Coal  Co.,  Jefferson 
Fire  Insurance  Co.,  Jessup  &  Moore  Paper  Co.,  Keystone  Publishing  Co., 
Latrobe  Steel  and  Coupler  Co.,  Lehigh  &  Hudson  River  Railway  Co., 
Lehigh  &  New  York  Railroad  Co.,  Lehigh  &  Wilkes-Barre  Coal  Co., 
Lehigh  Valley  Coal  Co.,  Lehigh  Valley  Railroad  Co.,  Lehigh  Valley  Rail- 
road Co.  of  N.  J.,  Lehigh  Valley  Railway  Co.,  Metropolitan  Opera  Co., 
Morris  Canal  and  Banking  Co.,  National  Storage  Co.,  National  Umbrella 
Frame  Co.,  New  York  &  Middle  Coal  Field  Railroad  and  Coal  Co., 
New  York  Short  Line  Railroad  Co.,  New  York  Standard  Watch  Co., 
Niagara  Falls  Power  Co.,  Perm  Traffic  Co.,  Pa.  Fire  Insurance  Co.,  Pa. 
Steel  Co.,  Phila.  &  Reading  Coal  and  Iron  Co.,  Phila.  National  Bank, 
Phila.  Trust,  Safe  Deposit  and  Insurance  Co.,  Phila.  Watch  Case  Co., 
Phoenix  Iron  Co.,  Pulaski  Iron  and  Improvement  Co.,  Red  Jacket  Con- 
solidated Coal  and  Coke  Co.,  Riverside  Metal  Co.,  Schuylkill  &  Lehigh 
Valley  Railroad  Co.,  Temple  Iron  Co.,  Transportation  Mutual  Insurance 
Co.,  Union  Transfer  Co.,  United  States  Watch  Co.,  William  Cramp  & 
Sons  Ship  and  Engine  Building  Co.,  Wyoming  Valley  Coal  Co.,  trustee 
Penn  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Co.;  vice-president  National  Horse  Show 
Assn.  of  America,  Ltd.  Mr.  Stotesbury  assisted  in  financing  the  Inter- 
national Chinese  loan,  1909;  assumed  indebtedness  of  Phila.  Grand 
Opera  Co.  and  formed  syndicate  to  buy  out  the  Hammerstein  interest  in 
the  same.  He  was  the  treasurer  of  the  Republican  national  campaign  fund 
during  the  campaigns  of  Roosevelt,  1904,  and  Taft,  1908.  He  is  a 
member  of  the  Philadelphia  Stock  Exchange.  Mr.  Stotesbury  was  for 
two  terms  the  president  of  the  Union  League  Club  of  Philadelphia. 

EFFINGHAM  BUCKLEY  MORRIS  .  .  .was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1878.  He 
has  been  president  of  the  Girard  Trust  Co.  since  1887;  director  of  the  Pa. 
Railroad  Co.  and  of  its  affiliated  lines;  chairman  of  the  Cambria  Steel  Co., 
Pennsylvania  Steel  Co.;  director  of  various  other  corporations;  trustee 
of  the  estate  of  Anthony  J.  Drexel,  deceased. 

GEORGE  WHARTON  PEPPER,  LL.D.,  .  .  .  was  Algernon  Sidney  Biddle 
professor  of  law,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  1893-1910;  is  in  practice 
at  Philadelphia.  Mr.  Pepper  has  been  special  assistant  attorney-general 
of  the  United  States  .  .  .  office  at  1438  Land  Title  Building. 


106 

SAMUEL  GIBSON  DIXON,  M.D.  .  .  .  In  1898  he  was  appointed  a  member  of 
the  Board  of  Education  of  Phila.  ...  In  1905  he  was  appointed  Com- 
missioner of  Health  of  the  State  of  Pa.,  which  office  he  still  holds.  ^_ 

MORRIS  LEWIS  CLOTHIER,  LL.D.,  .  .  .  entered  the  employ  of  Strawbridge 
and  Clothier,  June  30,  1890,  was  admitted  to  partnership  1895,  and  has 
been  senior  and  managing  partner  since  February  1, 1903.  He  is  a  director 
of  the  Girard  National  Bank,  Franklin  National  Bank,  Commercial  Trust 
Co.,  United  Gas  Improvement  Co.,  Seaboard  Steel  Casting  Co.,  Perm 
Mutual  Life  Insurance  Co.,  etc.  Member  Pa.  Commission  to  St.  Louis 
Exposition,  1904;  Republican  presidential  elector-at-large  for  Penna., 
1908. 

JOHN  CROMWELL  BELL,  LL.D.  .  .  .  Admitted  to  the  bar  in  1884,  he  was 
appointed  by  the  judges  district  attorney  of  Phila.,  April,  1903,  and  was 
elected  to  the  same  office  on  the  Republican  ticket,  November,  1903, 
serving  to  January,  1906  (declined  renomination) ;  Governor  Tener 
appointed  Mr.  Bell  attorney-general  of  Penna.,  1911-15. 

JAMES  WILLIAM  WHITE,  M.D.,  LL.D.,  .  .  .  advisory  surgeon  of  the  Pa. 
Railroad  Co.,  commissioner  of  Fairmount  Park. 

RICHARD  ALEXANDER  FTTLLERTON  PENROSE,  JR.,  Ph.D.  .  .  .  He  is  a 
member  of  the  board  of  managers  of  the  Phila.,  Germantown  &  Norris- 
town  Railway  Co.;  director  Ridge  Ave.  Passenger  Railway  Co.  of  Phila. 


21.    ATTENDING  CIRCUMSTANCES.* 

„  There  are  circumstances  attending  and  preceding  Professor 
Nearing's  removal,  which  invite  speculation  as  to  whether  public 
service  corporations  and  politics  inspired  the  trustees'  action 
last  June.  Obvious  features  of  this  action — surprise,  secrecy,  and 
silence — have  given  occasion  to  perhaps  groundless  suspicion. 
The  following  statement  of  facts  may  serve  for  the  guidance  of 
those  who  will  be  called  upon  to  investigate  the  still  hidden 
motives  of  this  action. 

Mr.  Joseph  Wharton's  deed  of  gift,  dated  the  22d  of  June, 
1881,  is  a  remarkable  document.  For  clearness  of  expression, 
soundness  of  judgment,  and  idealism  hi  the  field  of  education,  it 
deserves  to  rank  among  the  three  most  important  educational 
documents  in  the  history  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  the 
other  two  being  Franklin's  "Proposals  Relating  to  the  Education 
of  Youth,"  and  Dr.  William  Smith's  "College  of  Mirania,"  which 
made  him  our  first  provost. 

Mr.  Wharton's  deed  of  gift  was  read  to  the  assembled  trustees 
on  June  14,  1915,  before  they  proceeded  to  vote  upon  the  question 
of  Professor  Nearing's  reappointment.  The  significance  of  this 
action,  taken  at  the  request  of  a  member  of  the  board,  may  be 
surmised  from  this  clause: 

The  grantees  covenant  that  these  things  shall  be 
done,  and  that  the  failure  to  comply  with  these  stipula- 
tions shall  be  deemed  such  a  default  as  to  cause  reversion 
in  the  manner  hereinafter  provided. 

Among  "the  things"  which  the  trustees  of  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  covenanted  should  be  done,  are  the  folio  whig: 

The  general  tendency  of  instruction  shall  inculcate: 

The  immorality  and  practical  inexpediency  of 
seeking  to  acquire  wealth  by  winning  it  from  another 
rather  than  by  earning  it  through  some  sort  of  service  to 
one's  fellowmen. 


*  From  the  Public  Ledger  and  the  North  American,  9/12/15. 

(107) 


108 

The  deep  comfort  and  healthfulness  of  pecuniary 
independence,  whether  the  scale  of  affairs  be  small  or 
great. 

The  necessity  of  rigorously  punishing  by  legal  penal- 
ties and  by  social  exclusion  those  persons  who  commit 
frauds,  betray  trusts  or  steal  public  funds,  directly  or 
indirectly.  The  fatal  consequences  to  a  community  of 
any  weak  toleration  of  such  offenses  must  be  most  dis- 
tinctly pointed  out  and  enforced. 

Inasmuch  as  Professor  Nearing's  economic  doctrine  is  quite 
in  accord  with  the  general  and  specific  provisions  of  Mr.  Wharton's 
foundation,  the  question  naturally  arises — the  same  question, 
indeed,  virtually  put  to  the  Board  of  trustees  by  the  reading  of 
this  document — Is  the  Board  prepared  to  lose  Mr.  Wharton's 
fund?"  At  the  present  time  it  amounts  to  somewhat  over  $600,000, 
but  the  income  from  it  is  small  in  comparison  with  the  income  from 
tuition  fees.  Moreover,  the  activities  of  certain  instructors  in 
the  Wharton  School — activities  in  the  line  of  their  duty  under  Mr. 
Wharton's  deed  of  gift — have  cost  public  utility  corporations, 
according  to  reliable  testimony,  a  sum  larger  than  this  fund.  It 
would  therefore  have  been  profitable  to  these  corporations  to  have 
returned  Mr.  Wharton's  endowment  to  his  estate,  making  up  the 
amount  to  the  University,  provided  they  could  then  have  sup- 
pressed the  public  utterances  and  activities  of  those  whom  some 
are  pleased  to  call  their  "employees"  at  the  University.  At  the 
present  time  the  trustees  of  the  University  could  return  the 
fund  to  Mr.  Wharton's  heirs,  curtailing  the  Wharton  School  staff 
on  the  ground  of  "retrenchment,"  or  taking  an  equivalent  sum 
from  the  state  appropriation.  I  do  not  venture  to  guess  the 
intention  of  the  Board  of  Trustees.  As  an  alumnus  I  express  the 
belief  that  the  alumni  and  the  public  have  the  right  to  a  clear 
statement  of  the  meaning  of  Professor  Nearing's  removal,  in 
relation  to  the  issue  which  is  now  raised. 

Former  and  present  professors  in  the  Wharton  School, — 
Thompson,  McMaster,  James,  Cheyney,  Patten,  Lindsay,  Devine, 
Rowe,  and  among  the  younger  men,  Nearing,  King,  Conway  and 
Pierson,  have  written,  spoken,  and  taught  in  accordance  with  the 
liberal  and  statesmanlike  intentions  of  the  founder.  The  social 
and  political  sciences  must  investigate  economic  conditions,  and 


109 

to  publish  the  results  of  such  investigation  is  to  contribute  to  the 
social  welfare.  The  Wharton  School  has  consequently  achieved 
a  high  reputation  among  academic  institutions  in  this  country, 
and  at  the  same  time  members  of  the  faculty  have  come  into 
danger  of  personal  attack  at  the  hands  of  privileged  interests. 

As  early  as  February  11,  1886,  Dr.  Edmund  J.  James,  then 
professor  of  political  science  in  the  Wharton  School,  prepared  a 
paper  on  the  "Relations  of  the  Modern  Municipality  to  the  Gas 
Supply,"  from  which  I  quote  the  following  paragraph: 

"Let  us  put  it  in  another  way:  Are  you  in  favor  of 
paying  double  prices  for  gas?  Then  vote  to  let  a  private 
company  get  the  monopoly  of  the  business.  Are  you  in 
favor  to  agree  not  to  take  any  advantage  of  any  new 
discoveries  in  the  system  of  artificial  lighting  for  the  next 
twenty  years?  Then  vote  to  sell  the  gas  works  to  a 
private  company.  Are  you  in  favor  of  erecting  a  company 
within  the  city  whose  interest  it  will  be  to  join  hand  in 
hand  with  every  form  of  monopoly  which  now  curses  us? 
Then  vote  to  start  a  private  gas  company.  Are  you  in 
favor  of  diminishing  the  interest  which  the  citizens  now 
feel  in  the  administration  by  taking  away  the  most  impor- 
tant functions?  Then  hand  over  to  a  private  company 
the  business  of  looking  after  the  gas  supply." 

This  appeal  of  Dr.  James  proved  so  effective  that  when  a 
syndicate  was  formed  later  on  to  lease  the  Philadelphia  Water 
Works,  it  is  said  that  Dr.  James  was  offered  twenty  thousand 
dollars,  on  what  he  considered  reliable  authority,  if  he  would  say 
nothing  against  the  proposed  water  works  lease.  Professor  James' 
educational  vision  and  administrative  ability,  shown  particularly 
in  the  organization  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and 
Social  Science,  and  the  American  Society  for  the  Extension  of 
University  Teaching,  led  to  his  being  prominently  mentioned  as  a 
candidate  for  the  provostship,  ultimately  to  his  leaving  the 
University  for  other  fields  of  academic  work,  within  which  he  is 
still  active  as  President  of  the  University  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 
securing  from  the  last  legislature  an  appropriation  of  $5,000,000. 

The  example  of  Professor  James  in  boldly  carrying  out  the 
purposes  of  Mr.  Joseph  Wharton's  deed  of  gift,  was  followed  by 


no 

Professor  Leo  S.  Rowe.  In  the  May,  1898,  number  of  the  Annals 
of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  he 
published  a  paper  on  "The  Municipality  and  the  Gas  Supply  as 
Illustrated  by  the  Experience  of  Philadelphia."  This  paper  was 
evoked  by  "the  recent  decision  of  the  mayor  and  councils  of 
Philadelphia  to  lease  the  gas  works  to  a  private  company,"  which, 
according  to  Dr.  Howe,  marked  a  change  of  policy  of  more  than 
local  importance. 

In  1907  the  National  Civic  Federation  prepared  an  elaborate 
report  of  which  Part  2,  Vol.  I,  entitled  "Reports  of  Experts  for 
the  United  States,"  contains  1230  pages  dealing  with  questions  of 
municipal  versus  private  operation  of  public  utilities.  There 
are  two  reports  on  the  relation  of  Philadelphia  to  the  gas  supply, 
one  a  brief  report  prepared  by  Mr.  Walton  Clark,  vice-president 
of  the  United  Gas  Improvement  Company,  and  the  other  a 
report  of  77  pages  by  Professor  Rowe,  who  was  asked  to  contribute 
this  report,  "owing  to  the  importance  which  has  been  attached 
previously  to  the  experience  of  the  Philadelphia  Gas  Works  under 
Municipal  and  company  management."  It  is  claimed  that  the 
United  Gas  Improvement  Company  made  a  determined  effort 
to  have  certain  statements — admittedly  true,  but  yet  objectionable 
to  the  company — removed  from  Dr.  Rowe's  report,  and  Professor 
E.  W.  Bemis  has  written  over  his  own  signature  as  follows: 

"The  statement,  prepared  for  the  National  Civic 
Federation  Investigation  of  Municipal  Ownership,  was 
very  displeasing  to  Mr.  Clark,  who  tried  very  hard  to  have 
it  changed  or  rejected.  Failing  in  this  endeavor,  he, 
Clark,  became  much  excited,  and  declared  to  me  that  if 
Professor  Rowe  did  not  change  or  withdraw  the  account 
he  would  lose  all  social  and  scientific  standing  hi  Philadel- 
phia, and  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Mr.  Clark 
added  that  he  was  positive  of  this,  because  he  was  in  close 
touch  with  both  the  City  and  the  University." 

No  one  should  fail  to  read  two  lectures  given  at  various 
eastern  universities  during  the  early  part  of  1915  by  Philadelphia's 
Director  of  Public  Works,  Mr.  Morris  L.  Cooke,  privately  printed 
under  the  caption,  "Snapping  Cords,"  from  which  I  quote  the 
following: 


Ill 

"When  a  man  becomes  successful  on  the  cities'  side, 
the  utility  corporations  lose  no  time  in  attempting  to  ruin 
his  reputation.  Of  this  kind  of  treatment,  Prof.  Edward 
W.  Bemis,  whom  Mayor  Tom  L.  Johnson  of  Cleveland 
described  'as  an  expert  on  the  valuation  of  public  service 
corporations  and  the  only  expert  on  the  people's  side,' 
is  a  good  example.  Fortunately  for  Mr.  Bemis  he  is  not 
only  a  man  of  exceptional  ability  and  continuity  of  pur- 
pose but  he  has  worked  on  the  principle  that  he  could  not 
be  an  expert  on  both  sides  of  the  questions  fundamental 
to  the  utility  problem.  Time  and  time  again  since  I 
have  been  in  office  men  high  in  the  utility  field  have  told 
me  tales  about  this  splendid  man  in  an  effort  to  discredit 
him.  He  is  cordially  hated  by  the  big  men  in  the  utility 
industries  principally  because  he  is  a  resourceful  and 
competent  witness  in  rate  cases  and  knows  how  to  meet 
the  experts  put  forward  by  the  private  companies  as 
perhaps  can  no  other  man.  Sometime  since  I  was  told 
by  the  president  of  a  very  large  gas  company  that  Profes- 
sor Bemis  was  corrupt  and  that  Mayor  Hanna  of  Des 
Moines  would  confirm  the  statement.  I  wrote  to  Mayor 
Hanna  and  he  replied  that  'our  experience  with  Mr. 
Bemis  was  most  highly  satisfactory;  he  is  a  man  of 
remarkable  information  in  his  special  line  and  of  remark- 
able resourceful  ability.  As  a  witness  in  our  gas  contest 
he  was  of  inestimable  value.'  Some  years  ago  the  gas 
companies  of  the  country  hoped  to  make  of  the  Des 
Moines  case  one  that  would  be  a  classic  in  their  long 
continued  fight  to  prevent  the  regulation  of  prices,  but  the 
decisions  in  the  case  have  been  consistently  such  as  to  pre- 
vent realizing  on  this  hope.  This  is  doubtless  one  of  the 
reasons  why  Mr.  Bemis  is  so  cordially  disliked  by  the 
gas  group. 

"The  General  Counsel  of  the  American  Telegraph 
and  Telephone  Company  recently  gave  me  the  same  kind 
of  information  about  Mr.  Bemis.  Mr.  Guernsey  and  Mr. 
Bemis  I  think  were  on  opposite  sides  of  a  telephone  case 
in  Baltimore  several  years  ago.  It  invariably  happens 
that  when  one  knows  how  to  successfully  oppose  the 
private  interests  he  is  subject  to  the  most  bitter  attacks." 


112 

If  Professor  Rowe  was  cognizant  of  Mr.  Clark's  alleged  threat, 
it  did  not  modify  his  public  utterances,  for  he  devotes  a  chapter 
in  his  book  on  "City  Government"  (1908)  to  the  relation  of 
Philadelphia  to  the  Gas  Supply,  in  which  among  other  statements 
he  says: 

"When  in  September,  1897,  the  mayor  transmitted  to 
councils  the  offer  of  the  United  Gas  Improvement  Com- 
pany, it  soon  became  evident  from  the  disposition  of 
councils  to  stifle  discussion  and  hasten  action,  that  the 
plans  for  the  leasing  of  the  works  had  been  carefully 
laid.  .  .  .  the  permanent  interests  of  the  city  were  lost 
sight  of.  The  gas  works  were  handed  over  to  the  com- 
pany whose  proposals  alone  received  serious  consideration 
from  councils,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  other  and 
more  favorable  offers  had  been  made  by  responsible  par- 
ties. In  granting  an  exclusive  privilege  to  this  corpora- 
tion the  most  elementary  business  principles  were  disre- 
garded. .  .  .  Had  the  terms  of  the  lease  been  formu- 
lated with  reference  to  the  possibilities  of  profit  to  a 
company  enjoying  a  monopoly  of  the  gas  supply,  the 
results  would  have  been  very  different.  There  was 
evidence  on  all  sides  that  the  population  was  gradually 
awakening  to  this  fact;  but  so  rapidly  was  the  lease 
hurried  through  councils  that  no  opportunity  was  given 
to  make  such  awakening  effective. 

"  Furthermore,  in  parting  with  the  gas  works  the  city 
deprived  itself  of  the  power  of  performing  an  important 
social  service.  Until  recently  financial  considerations 
have  ruled  supreme  in  determining  the  sphere  of  muni- 
cipal activity  beyond  the  minimum  of  protection  to  life 
and  property.  We  are  beginning  to  see  that  social 
standards  should  be  given  some  weight  in  municipal 
policy.  .  .  . 

"The  municipality  for  this  reason  represents  a  far 
more  positive  force  in  the  life  of  the  British  city  than 
in  the  United  States.  That  American  municipalities 
must  in  time  perform  the  same  functions  is  evident  to 
anyone  who  has  followed  the  course  of  municipal  develop- 
ment in  this  country.  To  relinquish  public  works  means 


113 

simply  to  postpone  the  period  when  such  service  is  to  be 
performed.  .  .  . 

"With  every  diminution  of  city  functions  we  increase 
the  influence  of  irresponsible  corporate  bodies.  The 
real  problem  before  us  is  to  eliminate  such  corporate 
influence.  ...  To  those  who  have  studied  the  growth 
of  our  large  cities,  the  introduction  of  a  new  and  powerful 
corporation  into  the  public  life  of  the  community  means 
another  obstacle  to  civic  advantage.  As  regards  Phila- 
delphia, the  danger  has  been  increased  by  the  fact  that 
the  monopoly  of  the  street-railway  and  the  gas  and 
electric-light  services  is  vested  in  the  same  combination 
of  individuals. 

"  In  England  and  Scotland  some  270  and  in  Germany 
over  335  municipalities  own  and  operate  their  gas  works, 
with  an  efficiency  which  private  corporations  would  find 
difficult  to  equal  and  certainly  could  not  surpass." 

It  is  asserted  by  those  who  are  in  a  position  to  know,  that 
Professor  Howe's  department  has  not  been  able  to  secure  from 
the  Board  of  Trustees  adequate  financial  support  to  maintain  and 
develop  this  department. 

In  the  summer  of  1912,  at  the  request  of  Director  Cooke  and 
upon  the  urgent  advice  of  Dr.  Howe,  Dr.  Clyde  L.  King  aided 
the  Department  of  Public  Works  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia  in 
an  investigation  of  the  lighting  service  of  the  city,  through  which 
he  rendered  a  conspicuous  service  to  the  city  that  will  cost  the 
United  Gas  Improvement  Company  several  hundred  thousand 
dollars,  a  larger  sum  than  any  one  connected  with  this  company 
on  the  Board  of  Trustees  has  ever  given  for  any  purpose  to  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania. 

Dr.  Thomas  Con  way,  Jr.,  at  the  time  an  assistant  professor 
in  the  Wharton  School,  published  an  article  entitled,  "Decreasing 
Returns  on  Urban  Street  Railways,"  which  was  included  in  the 
Electric  Transportation  number  of  the  Annals  of  the  American 
Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  appearing  in  January, 
1911.  In  this  article  Dr.  Conway  presented  the  results  of  an 
investigation  which  showed  that  owing  to  bad  financial  and 
operating  management  the  financial  returns  from  city  electric 
railways  bad  steadily  decreased.  He  pointed  out  the  danger 


114 

which  was  imminent  to  stockholders  and  the  riding  public,  and 
outlined  the  steps  which  must  be  taken  to  avoid  disaster.  When 
Dr.  Conway  was  first  unanimously  recommended  by  the  Wharton 
School  faculty  for  promotion  to  a  full  professorship,  several 
months  later,  it  is  reported  that  his  nomination  was  held  up  in 
the  Academic  Council  because  complaint  was  offered  from  a 
certain  source  close  to  the  University,  charging  that  Dr.  Conway 
had  written  an  article  for  the  Annals  which  was  grossly  unscien- 
tific and  inaccurate,  and  which  had  done  a  great  deal  of  harm. 
Dr.  Young,  who  was  then  director  of  the  Wharton  School, 
caused  a  collection  to  be  made  of  opinions  of  the  leading  engineer- 
ing and  traffic  experts  upon  the  matter  in  controversy.  Without 
exception  they  supported  Dr.  Conway's  conclusion,  and  they 
were  then  presented  to  the  Provost,  who  stated  at  the  next  meeting 
of  the  Academic  Council  that  the  criticism  of  Dr.  Conway's  work 
had  been  unwarranted,  and  that  the  article  in  question  appeared 
to  be  a  scholarly  piece  of  work.  In  May,  1911,  the  Academic 
Council  unanimously  recommended  Dr.  Conway  to  the  Provost 
and  Board  of  Trustees  for  a  full  professorship.  This  recommenda- 
tion was  repeated  in  1912  and  1913,  but  it  was  not  until  1914  that 
Dr.  Conway  received  his  promotion.  Following  the  first  recom- 
mendation for  a  professorship,  a  committee  appointed  by  the 
American  Street  and  Interurban  Electric  Railway  Association,  a 
body  composed  of  the  electric  street  railway  officials  of  the  entire 
country,  which  had  worked  steadily  upon  the  same  problem 
covered  in  Dr.  Conway's  article,  made  a  report  in  October,  1911, 
in  which  his  findings  were  supported  in  their  entirety,  and  his 
proposed  remedies  reiterated  in  almost  identical  terms.  This 
report  was  officially  called  to  the  attention  of  the  Provost,  with 
the  request  that  he  place  it  in  the  hands  of  the  trustees  who  had 
previously  objected  to  Dr.  Conway's  promotion.  These  trustees 
are  said  to  have  been  engaged  at  the  time  in  trying  to  sell  a  street 
railway  at  an  inflated  valuation  to  the  "New  Haven"  and  to  have 
been  occupied  in  a  somewhat  similar  undertaking  in  connection 
with  electric  railway  properties  in  Indiana.  Is  it  reasonable  to 
expect  men  who  are  deriving  personal  profit  from  watering  stock, 
to  act  judicially  in  interpreting  any  rule  limiting  the  freedom  of 
speech  of  assistant  professors  and  instructors,  when  some  instruc- 
tors are  pointing  out  through  their  investigations  the  evil  effect 


115 

of  watered  stock  upon  the  economic  and  social  welfare  of  the 
community? 

Another  case  in  point  is  that  of  Dr.  Ward  W.  Pierson.  Before 
his  promotion  to  a  professorship,  Dr.  Pierson  engaged  hi  public 
work  which  resulted  in  the  creation  of  the  city's  Department  of 
Wharves,  Docks,  and  Ferries.  He  collected  facts  in  Europe  for 
use  in  the  suit  of  the  Cosmopolitan  Steamship  Company  against 
the  railroads  and  steamship  companies  composing  the  shipping 
trust,  and  finally  was  employed  as  counsel  in  a  case  against  the 
coal  transportation  companies  before  the  Public  Service  Commis- 
sion, in  which  he  disclosed  the  actual  cost  of  mining  and  trans- 
porting coal  hi  the  effort  to  show  that  transportation  charges 
constitute  an  excessive  element  in  the  cost  of  coal  to  the  con- 
sumer. There  are  trustees  interested  in  coal  and  transportation 
companies,  and  again  we  hear  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
that  the  public  activities  of  an  instructor  have  destroyed  his 
usefulness  to  the  institution.  Some  one,  we  are  told,  an  unnamed 
coal  operator,  was  about  to  give  a  large  sum  of  money  to  the 
University;  because  of  Dr.  Pierson's  activities,  he  declines  to 
make  the  contribution.  Judging  by  the  recorded  private  gifts 
to  the  institution  in  the  last  few  years,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
this  promised  money  is  "real"  money.  It  looks  like  a  gilded 
apple  dangled  before  the  eyes  of  the  professor  to  make  him  pull 
well  hi  the  harness  of  corporate  interests.  However  this  may  be, 
when  Dr.  Pierson  was  unanimously  recommended  to  the  Academic 
Council  in  April,  1911,  for  promotion  to  a  full  professorship,  Dr. 
Pierson  was  charged  with  a  grave  offense,  which  charge  was 
taken  up  by  Dr.  Young,  director  of  i.he  Wharton  School,  and 
other  members  of  the  faculty,  and  proved  to  be  entirely  without 
foundation  in  fact.  On  report  of  this  finding,  the  Academic 
Council  unanimously  recommended  Dr.  Pierson  to  the  Provost 
and  Board  of  Trustees  for  a  professorship,  but  this  recommenda- 
tion, like  Dr.  Conway's,  was  not  acted  upon  favorably  until 
June,  1914. 

Dr.  Scott  Nearing  was  actively  connected  with  the  movement 
for  improving  child  labor  legislation  in  Pennsylvania  in  1905  and 
1906,  before  he  became  an  instructor  in  the  Wharton  School. 
Shortly  after  his  appointment  to  an  instructorship  he  resigned 
as  secretary  of  the  Pennsylvania  Child  Labor  Committee,  where 


116 

he  had  been  active  in  reporting  violations  of  the  law  in  establish- 
ments of  prominent  manufacturers,  coming  in  conflict  with  them 
and  with  the  Chief  Factory  Inspector  over  the  enforcement  of 
the  child  labor  provisions  of  the  factory  law,  the  sharpness  of  the 
issue  attracting  a  great  deal  of  public  attention.  Under  Mr. 
Joseph  Wharton's  deed  of  gift,  Dr.  Nearing  might  have  interpreted 
it  to  be  his  duty  to  remain  officially  connected  with  the  child  labor 
propaganda  in  this  state.  Nevertheless,  he  has  not  been  officially 
connected  with  the  movement  since  1907,  although  he  has  publicly 
expressed  his  views  on  the  subject.  It  is  reported  that  he  was 
told  in  1910  by  one  authorized  to  represent  the  University: 
"You  are  trying  to  wipe  out  child  labor  and  poverty.  These 
things  always  have  been  and  always  will  be.  Take  up  some  work 
that  will  let  you  get  somewhere.  Besides,  such  talk  hurts  the 
University."  In  1911  Dr.  Nearing  accepted  an  invitation  to 
speak  at  the  Spring  Garden  Unitarian  Church  on  April  9th,  on 
"  Social  Religion."  After  the  cards  announcing  the  meeting  had 
been  printed,  Professor  Patten  and  the  director  of  the  Wharton 
School  both  advised  that  the  meeting  be  called  off,  and  at  their 
suggestion  Dr.  Nearing  agreed  to  do  no  public  talking  for  one 
year,  and  claims  to  have  kept  the  agreement.  At  this  time  he 
was  told  by  one  in  authority  that  so  long  as  he  continued  to  talk 
and  write  on  touchy  live  issues,  he  must  expect  neither  promotion 
nor  increase  of  salary.  On  May  27,  1912,  the  director  of  the 
Wharton  School  informed  Dr.  Nearing  that  the  Wharton  School 
budget  was  being  held  up,  because  certain  instructors  in  the 
Wharton  School  were  too  radical.  On  June  7,  1912,  two  pro- 
fessors were  told  by  the  Provost  that  he  was  greatly  harassed  by 
those  who  objected  to  progressivism  in  the  Wharton  School,  and 
he  would  be  much  relieved  if  certain  members  of  the  Wharton 
School  faculty  would  go  somewhere  else. 

Dean  William  Draper  Lewis's  advocacy  of  the  recall  of 
judicial  decisions  and  his  connection  with  the  candidacy  of  Theo- 
dore Roosevelt  for  president,  stimulated  those  who  believe  that 
the  University  should  stand  for  "things  as  they  are,"  to  more 
determined  efforts  to  suppress  the  free  expression  of  thought  and 
the  public  activities  of  members  of  the  faculty.  During  this  spring 
the  state  legislature  met,  and  voted  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
a  large  appropriation.  On  July  31, 1913,  six  days  after  the  Univer* 


117 

sity  appropriation  bill  was  signed  by  the  Governor,  official  notices 
were  sent  to  instructors  in  the  Wharton  School  pointedly  calling 
attention  to  the  fact  that  their  appointments  were  for  one  year 
only,  and  would  expire  unless  renewed.  These  notices  were  not 
sent  to  assistant  professors  or  instructors  in  the  College  faculty. 
The  Wharton  School  faculty  accepted  them  as  an  expression  on 
the  part  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  then*  intention  to  rid  the 
University  of  Dr.  King,  Dr.  Nearing,  and  perhaps  others  at  the 
end  of  the  academic  year,  1913-14. 

On  November  23,  1913,  Dr.  Nearing  spoke  in  the  Methodist 
Church  at  Morrisville,  Pa.,  on  invitation  of  the  Rev.  Chris  G. 
Koppel.  The  next  day  the  Daily  Courier  of  Bristol,  Pa.,  which  is 
said  to  be  the  supporter  of  a  local  manufacturer,  published  as  an 
editorial  an  open  letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Koppel,  containing  among 
other  statements  the  following: 

"  Believing  you  to  be  a  conscientious  young  man  and 
desirous  of  furthering  the  cause  of  Jesus  Christ,  which 
is  the  cause  of  man  and  not  of  any  one  class  of  men,  we 
are  prompted  to  address  this  open  letter  to  you  in  refer- 
ence to  the  gwasi-religious  service  which  was  held  in  your 
church  last  evening.  A  feature  of  this  service  was  an 
address  on  child  labor  by  Dr.  Scott  Nearing  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania.  We  are  informed  that  Dr. 
Nearing  does  not  believe  in  a  personal  God;  that  the  only 
deity  he  accepts  is  humanity.  He  cannot,  therefore, 
believe  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  from  your  point  of 
view  and  ours  he  is  an  atheist.  We  ask  you  whether  you 
knew  this  to  be  the  fact  when  you  got  down  on  your 
knees  in  the  pulpit  and  asked  God's  blessing  on  the 
message  this  good  young  man  was  to  bring  to  your  flock 
at  your  invitation.  .  .  .  The  bias  and  mendacity  of  Dr. 
Nearing  are  so  notorious  and  chronic  that  we  should  pass 
them  unnoticed  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  you  have 
given  them  your  personal  endorsement.  Dr.  Nearing  is 
at  war  with  the  entire  order  of  civilization.  .  .  .  Dr. 
Nearing  knows  that  the  child  labor  workers  permitted 
themselves  to  be  brow-beaten  by  political  interests  with 
which  they  were  affiliated,  into  rejecting  a  bill  reducing 
hours,  »  f  »  Dr.  Nearing  and  his  friends  defeated  that 


118 

bill  and  they  did  it  because  their  political  allies  told  them 
they  would  have  to  have  something  left  over  for  a  cam- 
paign argument.  .  .  .  We  beg  you  not  to  debase  your  real 
talents  or  to  embarrass  the  good  people  of  your  congre- 
gation by  cultivating  the  methods  of  the  clerical  mounte- 
bank who  values  a  little  fleeting  publicity  more  than  the 
approval  of  the  God  of  us  all,  manufacturer  or  child 
laborer,  politician  or  social  worker." 

Dr.  Nearing  then  wrote  to  Mr.  William  C.  Watson,  the 
proprietor  of  the  Daily  Courier,  and  received  from  him  under  date 
of  December  5,  1913,  a  letter  in  which  he  says: 

"  I  wish  you  to  know  that  I  was  favorably  impressed 
with  the  tone  of  your  letter,  and  I  am  almost  emboldened 
to  hope  that  you  really  are  sincere  and  not  merely  an 
agitator  for  agitation's  sake.  If  I  am  correct  in  this  opin- 
ion, it  lies  within  my  power  to  bring  you  into  closer 
touch  with  some  industrial  facts  than  you  have  been  in 
the  past.  .  .  .  The  prosperity  of  this  borough  depends 
upon  the  free  and  unhampered  operation  of  its  indus- 
tries. .  .  .  You  have  seen  fit  in  your  various  excursions 
to  single  out  a  man  with  whom  I  am  more  or  less  closely 
in  touch  as  a  type  of  what  you  are  pleased  to  call  indus- 
trial iniquity.  I  refer,  of  course,  to  Mr.  Joseph  R. 
Grundy." 

As  Mr.  Watson  invited  Dr.  Nearing  to  meet  Mr.  Grundy,  Dr. 

Nearing  accepted  this  invitation  in  a  letter  of  December  9th,  in. 

which  he  says: 

"  I  very  much  appreciate  your  interest  in  the  issues 
which  are  involved  in  the  present  social  legislation  cam- 
paign. First,  to  my  knowledge  I  have  never  mentioned 
Mr.  Grundy's  name  in  a  public  address.  Secondly, 
although  I  have  never  been  through  Mr.  Grundy's  mill, 
I  have  been  in  Bristol  several  times  and  haye  watched  his 
employees  enter  and  leave  the  mill.  Judging  from 
hearsay,  I  think  I  am  correct  in  my  estimate  that  Mr. 
Grundy  is  not  only  obeying  the  letter  of  the  law,  but  he 
is  in  addition  going  out  of  his  way  to  provide  good 
working  conditions  for  his  employees. 


119 

"The  issue  which  I  am  raising  is,  of  course,  a  wholly 
different  one.  Pennsylvania  is  a  rich  and  very  prosperous 
state.  In  my  estimation  her  future  prosperity  depends 
primarily,  in  fact  almost  solely,  upon  the  character  of  her 
future  citizens.  I  therefore  raise  the  question  of  the 
desirability  of  employing  young  children  in  industries 
today.  'What  will  be  the  effect  of  this  employment  on  the 
industries  of  tomorrow?  If  we  are  to  take  a  statesman- 
like view  of  these  matters,  we  must  look  to  the  future 
as  well  as  to  the  present.  In  fact,  I  think  we  must  look  to 
the  future  more  than  to  the  present,  because  it  is  so 
much  larger  than  the  present. 

"No  one  is  more  interested  in  the  prosperity  of  Penn- 
sylvania than  I  am.  My  definition  of  prosperity,  how- 
ever, includes  the  welfare  of  all  the  people  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  not  the  welfare  of  a  selected  few.  .  .  . 

"Personal  blame  does  not  attach  for  the  present 
situation.  No  individual  is  responsible.  Yet  as  a 
society  we  are  collectively  responsible  if  we  fail  to  use  the 
means  at  hand  to  readjust  living  and  working  conditions, 
not  the  best  interests  of  the  men  and  women  who  are 
living  and  working,  but  who  will  live  and  work  in  Pennsyl- 
vania." 

In  his  reply  of  December  llth,  Mr.  Watson  says: 

"Your  reference  to  Mr.  Grundy  and  his  mill  was 
particularly  gratifying  to  me.  I  am  glad  to  hear  you 
say  that  you  have  not  criticized  him  personally,  but  I 
think  you  will  agree  that  hi  the  newspaper  reports  of 
your  speeches  you  have  been  made  to  appear  as  singling 
out  Grundyism  as  something  very  horrible,  and  of  course 
if  the  ism  is  bad,  the  natural  inference  is  that  the  man 
himself  must  be  bad  also." 

As  a  result  of  this  correspondence  Dr.  Nearing  met  Mr. 
Grundy  and  Mr.  J.  P.  Wood  at  a  meeting  at  which  the  general 
situation  was  talked  over. 

i        The  correspondence  which  I  have  just  quoted  appears  to 
cast  no  discredit  upon  any  of  the  parties  concerned,  least  of  all 


120 

upon  Dr.  Nearing.  Nevertheless,  Dean  McCrea  of  the  Wharton 
School,  on  request  of  the  Provost,  asked  Dr.  Nearing  to  cease 
his  child  labor  talks,  and  Mr.  Nathan  T.  Folwell,  President  of  the 
Manufacturers'  Club,  made  an  open  attack  upon  Dr.  Nearing  in  a 
Philadelphia  newspaper.  Rumors  spread  abroad  that  the  price  of 
the  University's  appropriation  from  the  state  legislature  was  Dr. 
Nearing's  dismissal.  These  rumors  led  to  a  public  campaign 
in  which  certain  Philadelphia  newspapers,  members  of  the  faculty, 
students  and  alumni  joined  in  supporting  Dr.  Nearing,  Dr.  King, 
and  other  members  of  the  University  faculty  who  seemed  to  be 
threatened  by  the  Board  of  Trustees.  The  result  of  this  campaign 
was  the  promotion  in  June,  1914,  of  Dr.  Con  way  and  Dr.  Pierson 
to  be  professors,  and  of  Dr.  King  and  Dr.  Nearing  to  be  assistant 
professors.  But  with  the  University's  notification  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  Drs.  King  and  Nearing  to  assistant  professorships,  went 
a  copy  of  the  by-law  warning  them  that  their  appointment  termi- 
nated at  the  end  of  the  academic  year  1914-15  without  further 
notice.  Copies  of  this  statement  were  not  sent  in  1914  to  assistant 
professors  in  the  College  department.  The  peculiar  significance 
of  sending  a  copy  of  this  by-law  to  Wharton  School  assistant 
professors  was  emphasized  when  the  Alumni  Register  in  its  October 
number  congratulated  the  University  upon  having  displayed  its 
adherence  to  academic  freedom  in  making  these  appointments,  but 
at  the  same  time  asserted  editorially  that  officers  of  instruction 
at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  are  employees  of  the  Trustees, 
and  when  an  employee  finds  that  he  cannot  perform  his  prescribed 
functions  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  employer,  if  he  is  a  gentleman 
he  will  resign. 

In  March,  1915,  a  difference  of  opinion  with  respect  to 
Professor  Nearing's  reappointment  disclosed  itself  in  the  Trustees' 
Committee  on  Wharton  School,  composed  of  Mr.  Louis  C.  Madeira,  > 
chairman,  Mr.  Wharton  Barker,  Mr.  J.  Bertram  Lippincott,  and 
Mr.  George  Wharton  Pepper.  *  Because  of  the  opposition  of  Mr.1 
Madeira  and  Mr.  Pepper  to  Professor  Nearing's  reappointment, 
which  opposition  precipitated  the  discussion  and  negative  vote 
at  the  board  meeting  in  June,  Mr.  Wharton  Barker  wrote  a  letter 
to  Provost  Smith  under  date  of  April  5,  1915,  first  made  public 
following  Mr.  Bell's  publication  of  his  reason  for  voting  against 
J)r.  Nearing.  As.  this  letter  conveniently  summarizes  the  various 


121 

grounds  of  objection  then  offered  to  Dr.  Hearing's  reappointment, 
it  should  be  given  careful  consideration: 

"The  letters,  four,  I  think,  you  placed  before  the 
Board  of  Trustees  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania, 
appear  to  be  charges  of  economic  heterodoxy  rather  than 
of  ecclesiastical  heterodoxy.  I  attach  to  this  letter  a 
slip  that  covers  an  open  letter,  addressed  by  Scott  Nearing, 
who  is  attacked  by  the  writers  of  the  letters  referred  to, 
which  breathes  from  end  to  end  the  spirit  of  Him  who 
preached  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  letter  I  want 
you  to  read. 

"If  the  action  George  Wharton  Pepper  and  J. 
Levering  Jones  would  have  the  trustees  of  the  University 
take  should  be  taken — action  I  cannot  believe  possible — 
Jews,  Unitarians  and  other  dissenters  would  be  driven 
from  the  University  of  Pennsylvania;  students  and 
professors,  associate  professors  and  instructors  would  be 
driven. 

"Is  it  possible  that  such  men  as  Joseph  Leidy, 
Thomas  H.  Huxley,  John  Tyndall,  William  H.  Furness, 
Horace  Howard  Furness,  Henry  C.  Lea  and  hosts  of 
other  men  as  earnest  but  not  as  well  known  should  have  a 
ban  put  upon  them  by  the  University  of  Pennsylvania? 
j  "I  hope  the  action  taken  by  the  board  of  trustees 
about  a  year  since,  when  the  statement  of  Effingham  B. 
Morris  as  to  the  position  of  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania trustees  for  free  speech  and  religious  liberty  may 
stand  without  modification  as  the  declared  position  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania. 

I-  "Thomas  H.  Huxley,  upon  his  installation  as  rector 
of  Aberdeen  University  in  1874  said :  '  Universities  should 
be  places  in  which  thought  is  free  from  all  fetters  and  in 
which  all  sources  of  knowledge  and  all  aids  to  learning 
should  be  accessible  to  all  comers,  without  distinction 
of  creed  or  country,  riches  or  poverty.' 

"Can  any  one  who  believes  in  free  speech  and  reli- 
gious liberty  take  other  position  than  that  taken  by  Hux- 
ley? 


122 

"The  attacks  upon  Nearing  are  made,  not  because 
of  his  views  upon  religion,  but  because  he  attacks  the 
aggressions  of  associated  capital;  attacks  made  because 
associated  capital  knows  that  its  aggression  upon 
economic  rights  of  the  people  is  nefarious  and  cannot 
stand  against  adequate  presentation  of  the  demands  of 
the  people  and  of  the  aggressions  of  associated  capital. 

"I  think  no  one  in  the  United  States  has,  during  a 
period  of  thirty  years,  given  more  study  to  these  vital 
questions  than  I  have  given,  and  I  do  not  believe  any  one 
would  venture  to  charge  my  statements  as  vindictive  or 
unsupported  by  facts,  because  my  statements  rest  upon 
facts  and  not  upon  assumptions. 

"I  write  you  this  letter  for  obvious  reasons." 

The  Provost  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  is  an  appointee 
of  the  board  of  trustees.  So  long  as  he  remains  Provost,  he 
must  carry  out  the  orders  of  the  board.  The  abrupt  letter  of 
dismissal  dated  June  15,  1915,  was  sent  to  Professor  Nearing 
from  the  Provost's  office,  by  order  of  the  board  of  trustees.  The 
Provost  has  since  maintained  absolute  silence  with  respect  to  his 
own  and  the  board's  action.  Nevertheless,  rumor  has  connected 
him  with  Dr.  Nearing's  dismissal,  and  it  is  said  on  the  authority 
of  a  trustee  that  Professor  Nearing  was  not  reappointed  by  the 
board  because  the  Provost  did  not  want  him  reappointed.  What- 
ever the  Provost's  personal  opinion  may  have  been,  there  does 
not  appear  to  be  any  evidence  for  the  belief  that  he  used  the 
power  of  his  office  to  further  Professor  Nearing's  removal. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  New  York  Alumni,  held  February  10, 
1912,  the  Provost  is  quoted  as  having  said  in  part,  "Tonight  you 
will  not  expect  me  to  occupy  much  of  your  time,  for  our  Trustees 
are  your  real  guests,  and  you  desire  to  hear  from  them.  .  .  . 
The  administration  of  the  University  is  aiming  to  bring  about 
unanimity  of  thought  and  action  in  our  faculties." 

The  "administration,"  as  the  Provost  understands  it,  is  the 
board  of  trustees.  The  Provost  has  openly  declared  that  he  has 
"no"  policy.  He  places  the  responsibility  of  action  on  those  who 
assert  the  right  and  have  the  power  to  act.  He  is  the  very 
opposite  of  the  autocrat,  and  would  appear  to  carry  to  the  utmost 
limit  the  principles  of  democratic  government.  For  this  and  other 


123 

reasons,  I  disregard  the  rumors  which  associate  the  Provost  with 
the  dominant  faction  of  the  Republican  party  in  this  state.  He 
is  indeed  a  Republican  in  politics.  He  stood  for  election  as  a  Taft 
delegate  to  the  last  presidential  convention.  He  has  spoken  with 
kindliness  of  a  contractor  politician,  but  he  speaks  with  kindliness 
of  all.  Because  the  trustees  have  failed  to  make  good  the  promise 
given  at  the  time  of  his  election  as  provost,  that  he  should  not  be 
required  to  find  the  money  to  run  the  institution,  it  has  been 
necessary  for  him  to  treat  with  the  political  leaders  in  the  state 
legislature.  He  has  frankly  expressed  his  opinions  on  political 
and  other  questions.  He  should  be  granted  the  same  freedom  to 
express  his  personal  views  and  to  act,  which  every  member  of  the 
faculty  would  claim  for  himself.  Moreover,  I  do  not  believe  that 
political  leaders  or  so-called  "bosses"  are  mainly  responsible  for 
the  evils  of  the  "invisible  government"  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia 
and  the  state  of  Pennsylvania.  The  chief  offenders  are  the  great 
corporations,  which  have  acquired  a  private  monopoly  in  the 
field  of  public  utilities.  The  offense  of  many  political  leaders  is 
of  the  nature  of  treason,  because  they  pretend  to  be  servants  of 
the  public,  whereas  in  fact  they  serve  their  masters,  the  private 
interests.  Is  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  in  danger  of  being 
brought  under  the  same  mastership? 

I  hope  that  all  the  trustees  are  statesmen  of  rare  unselfishness, 
at  least  in  the  field  of  education,  for  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  board 
are  fair  representatives  of  the  allied  business  and  political  interests 
whose  influence  on  civil  government  even  Mr.  Root  has  come  to 
deplore. 


LAW  LIBttAKY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  696  420     9 


